Group 1 - The chairman and party secretary of Northeast Small and Medium Enterprises Financing Re-guarantee Co., Ltd., Chai Wei, is under investigation for serious violations of discipline and law [1] - The investigation is being conducted by the Discipline Inspection Commission and Supervisory Commission of Jilin Province [2]

秋分时节，昼夜均分。在广东省连州市东陂河畔，晚霞将天际晕染成橙黄，河面倒映着漫天霞光与远山 轮廓，一叶扁舟划过，漾开金色涟漪。（广东省连州市纪委监委供 骆志刚 摄） 秋分天渐凉，恰是食藕时。浙江省永康市黄棠村的荷塘叶落藕熟，藕农身着防水衣，深一脚浅一脚在藕 田忙碌，采挖着地里的莲藕。（浙江省永康市纪委监委供 卢斌 摄） 燕将明日去，秋向此时分。秋分是分水岭，一边是夏末余温，一边是深秋序曲。秋分时节，土地里蕴藏 着丰收的讯息，承载着人们一年的期盼。 秋分到，梯田美。广西壮族自治区融水苗族自治县杆洞乡高培苗寨，梯田里的水稻渐次成熟。金黄色的 稻谷与连绵起伏的青山，构成一幅美丽的秋日画卷。（广西壮族自治区融水苗族自治县纪委监委供 龙 林智 摄） 金秋时节，蓝天白云下，金黄稻浪翻滚，农民抢抓晴好天气收割稻谷，描绘出乡村振兴的多彩图景。 （贵州省余庆县纪委监委供 盛朝友 摄） 晨光初染，秋水如镜。轻纱笼水的湖面上，橹声轻摇，荡开缕缕银漪。渔人稳立舟头，扬手处网落如云 影铺水，捞得满舱秋色，一篓丰年。（安徽省郎溪县纪委监委供 高一帆 摄） （中央纪委国家监委网站 周振华 整理） ...

（陕西省纪委监委） 中央纪委国家监委网站讯 据陕西省纪委监委消息：陕西省商洛市人大常委会副主任崔孝栓涉嫌严重违 纪违法，目前正接受陕西省纪委监委纪律审查和监察调查。 ...

（湖南省纪委监委） 经查，郭世民背离初心使命，漠视党纪国法，与他人串供，向组织提供虚假情况，对抗组织审查；违反 中央八项规定精神，收受可能影响公正执行公务的礼金；违背组织原则，在职工录用、职务晋升等工作 中为他人谋取利益并收受财物；廉洁底线失守，违规从事营利活动，利用职权为亲属谋取利益；搞权钱 交易，非法收受巨额财物。 郭世民严重违反党的政治纪律、组织纪律、廉洁纪律，构成严重职务违法并涉嫌受贿犯罪，且在党的十 八大后不收敛、不收手，性质恶劣、情节严重，应予严肃处理。依据《中国共产党纪律处分条例》《中 华人民共和国监察法》《中华人民共和国公职人员政务处分法》等有关规定，经湖南省纪委常委会会议 研究并报湖南省委批准，决定给予郭世民开除党籍处分，按规定取消其享受的退休待遇；收缴其违纪违 法所得；将其涉嫌受贿犯罪问题移送检察机关依法审查起诉，所涉财物一并移送。 中央纪委国家监委网站讯 据湖南省纪委监委消息：日前，经湖南省委批准，湖南省纪委监委对湖南省 水文水资源勘测中心原党委书记、主任郭世民严重违纪违法问题进行了立案审查调查。 ...

中央纪委国家监委网站讯 据河南省纪委监委消息：河南省医疗保障局原副局长孙晓灿涉嫌严重违纪违 法，目前正接受河南省纪委监委纪律审查和监察调查。 （河南省纪委监委） ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involves Chen, who misappropriated employee education subsidies from a state-owned company, leading to a debate on the legal classification of his actions, with a consensus leaning towards the charge of embezzlement of state assets [2][6]. Group 1: Misappropriation of Funds - Chen, as the party branch secretary and responsible person of the company, conspired with others to fraudulently obtain over 350,000 yuan in employee education subsidies by falsifying invoices and documents [1][6]. - The funds were then distributed to employees under the guise of subsidies, with Chen personally receiving 40,000 yuan from this scheme [1][6]. Group 2: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three differing opinions on how to classify Chen's actions: one suggests it was a violation of regulations regarding subsidy distribution, another views it as embezzlement, while the third, which is favored, classifies it as the crime of misappropriating state assets [2][3]. - The argument against classifying the actions as a violation of subsidy distribution is based on the nature of the fraud, which involved deceitful acquisition rather than merely improper distribution [3][4]. Group 3: Implications of Misappropriation - The actions taken by Chen and his associates are deemed to constitute the crime of misappropriating state assets, as they violated national regulations and involved significant amounts of money [6]. - The case meets the criteria for prosecution under the law, given the amount involved exceeds the threshold for serious offenses against state assets [6].

Core Viewpoint - Major projects are key drivers of economic growth and important engines for high-quality development, with a focus on ensuring integrity and efficiency in their execution [1] Group 1: Responsibility Enforcement - Ziyang City has laid out hundreds of major projects this year across various sectors, including advanced manufacturing and infrastructure, which involve significant investment and high integrity risks [2] - The local disciplinary inspection and supervision authority is closely monitoring responsibility implementation, identifying key projects for annual supervision, and holding accountable those responsible for project delays due to inadequate performance [2] - A smart supervision platform has been established to monitor six high-risk areas in project management, enabling early detection and intervention of integrity risks through data sharing and anomaly identification [2] Group 2: Innovative Supervision Methods - The city adopts a "full-cycle management" approach to supervision, embedding oversight throughout the entire project lifecycle, from decision-making to completion [3] - A comprehensive supervision mechanism is in place to assess integrity risks before approvals, ensuring strict adherence to procedures and accountability for violations [3] - During the construction phase, the focus is on monitoring the responsibilities of various stakeholders, with corrective actions taken for any lapses in duty [3] Group 3: Collaborative Supervision Efforts - The complexity and breadth of major project supervision necessitate a collaborative approach, integrating various supervisory bodies to enhance efficiency [4] - A mechanism for joint oversight among disciplinary inspection, audit, and inspection bodies has been established to facilitate information sharing and coordinated responses to high-risk projects [5] - Social supervision channels have been expanded, including the appointment of industry experts as supervisors and the establishment of monitoring points at project sites to collect real-time feedback [5]

用好纪检监察建议是纪检监察机关履行监督职责、放大监督效能的重要手段，也是做深做实案件查 办"后半篇文章"的重要抓手。湖北省孝感市纪委监委立足职责定位，用好纪检监察建议这一有力武器， 探索构建从制发到整改全过程督办机制，推动纪检监察建议全面落实到位。 落实部门整改主体责任，推动双向发力、同题共答，真正把建议落到实处。截至目前，共发现反馈督办 问题4类42条、落实整改问题5类56条。（赵志国，系湖北省孝感市委常委，市纪委书记、监委代主任） 督在源头，激活整改动能。一是沟通引导在前。牢固树立制发建议书后不督办不如不发、必须维护建议 书严肃性权威性等理念，坚持制发建议书前就与被提出建议党组织或单位进行沟通引导，向其宣讲相关 法规制度，增强其对不落实建议要承担相应纪律和法律责任的思想认识，以此凝聚思想共识、推动同题 共答。二是告知提醒在前。探索建立建议书送达告知制度，实行制发目的、整改期限、谋划部署、方案 制定、调度推进、销号管理等"十告知"，明确制定整改方案必须与建议内容逐项对应，落实整改必须常 态抓好警示反思、压实责任，建议内容必须逐条逐项落细落实，整改全程必须贯穿问题导向、效果导向 等，把要求提在前、标准立在前。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection emphasizes the use of big data and information technology to enhance anti-corruption efforts and improve project management in the housing and urban-rural development sector [1] Group 1: Digital Transformation in Project Management - The digital transformation in various industries has led to increased investment in information technology projects, which are characterized by high technical complexity, strong professional barriers, and significant capital intensity [1] - The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's Information Center is focusing on supervising and preventing integrity risks in information technology projects by developing a management platform that promotes online management of project data [1][2] Group 2: Digitalization of Key Processes - The project management platform incorporates digital modules for cost management, project approval, bidding agency selection, contract signing, and progress evaluation to ensure compliance and efficiency [2] - A digital cost management module allows for the upload of budget standards and cost reports, facilitating preemptive budget assessments [2] - The platform mandates joint approval from relevant departments for key project stages, ensuring procedural compliance and rationality in project demands [2] Group 3: Preemptive Monitoring and Risk Management - The platform integrates pre-warning rules for key risk areas, enabling dynamic monitoring and real-time alerts to strengthen supervision during project execution [3][4] - Cost pre-warning mechanisms analyze budget increases and flag potential inflation of costs, while procurement methods are monitored to identify any irregularities [3] - Contract change monitoring is implemented to detect unusual behaviors such as frequent supplementary agreements or budget increases without written justification [4] Group 4: Multi-Dimensional Supervision - The project management platform establishes various databases to enhance oversight of financial flows, personnel movements, and project progress [5] - Financial flow supervision focuses on discrepancies between contract stipulations and actual payments, generating alerts for abnormal transactions [5] - Personnel flow supervision identifies high-risk relationships between parties involved in projects, triggering alerts for compliance checks [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the classification and handling of a case involving a public official, Zhang, who accepted a consumption card from a business representative, highlighting the need for precise and fact-based evaluations in determining whether such actions constitute disciplinary violations or bribery [1]. Case Background - Zhang, a deputy director in A City, was involved in logistics outsourcing, and received a consumption card worth 30,000 yuan from Luo, the representative of B Logistics Company, after dining together [2]. - The consumption card was purchased for 25,000 yuan during a promotional event, which increased its value to 30,000 yuan, and Zhang used it multiple times for dining with Luo [2]. Divergent Opinions - Three main opinions exist regarding the classification of Zhang's actions: 1. Zhang's acceptance of the card constitutes bribery, with the amount recognized as 30,000 yuan due to the relationship with Luo [3]. 2. Zhang's actions violate the central eight regulations and should be treated as a disciplinary issue, with the amount recognized as 20,000 yuan based on shared dining expenses [4]. 3. Zhang's actions also violate the regulations, but the amount should be recognized as 25,000 yuan, the actual payment made for the card [5]. Amount Recognition Analysis - The article emphasizes the importance of accurately determining the amount involved in Zhang's case, with three viewpoints on how to assess the value of the consumption card: 1. Based on the card's face value of 30,000 yuan [6]. 2. After deducting shared expenses, recognizing it as 20,000 yuan [7]. 3. Recognizing it as 25,000 yuan, the actual payment made by Luo [6][7]. Behavioral Classification Analysis - The article references legal interpretations that suggest Zhang's acceptance of the card could be seen as a potential conflict of interest, especially given the business relationship between Zhang's department and Luo's company [8]. - However, since there were no specific requests made by Luo to Zhang, it argues that Zhang's actions do not meet the criteria for bribery [9]. Conclusion - Ultimately, Zhang's acceptance of the consumption card is classified as a violation of the central eight regulations, with the amount recognized as 25,000 yuan, aligning with the third viewpoint [11].