银行“求情”未改判决，山西尧都农商银行3000万元违法放贷风波尘埃落定

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Shanxi Yaodu Rural Commercial Bank highlights the consequences of illegal loan issuance, resulting in the conviction of two bank employees for unlawfully issuing a loan of 30 million yuan [2][3][4]. Group 1: Case Details - The original loan of 30 million yuan was issued in June 2013 to a high school represented by Liu, with the bank's customer manager Gao failing to conduct proper due diligence [3]. - The bank's internal investigation revealed that the borrower had repaid 4 million yuan of the principal, leaving 26 million yuan unpaid at the time of the incident, which caused significant losses to the financial institution [3][4]. - Both Liu and Gao were sentenced to two years in prison with a two-year probation and fined 20,000 yuan each for their roles in the illegal loan issuance [2][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Sentencing - The Shanxi Yaodu Rural Commercial Bank attempted to mitigate the situation by requesting leniency for the two employees, citing their good behavior and the lack of financial loss [4][5]. - The court, however, determined that the amount involved was particularly large, and thus, the actions of Liu and Gao could not be classified as minor offenses [4][5]. - The court's decision to grant probation was influenced by the fact that the borrower had repaid the entire loan principal, and the bank's request for leniency was considered in the sentencing process [5][6]. Group 3: Implications for Financial Institutions - The case underscores the importance of compliance with lending regulations and the potential legal repercussions for bank employees who fail to adhere to due diligence protocols [3][4]. - Legal experts suggest that financial institutions should maintain open communication with legal representatives during such cases to seek resolutions and potentially mitigate penalties [5][6]. - The outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the role of financial institutions in the sentencing of their employees [5][6].