三堂会审丨准确区分违反工作纪律和滥用职权罪

Core Viewpoint - The case of Jin, a former deputy director of the B District Management Committee in A City, highlights the issues of work discipline violations and abuse of power, particularly in the context of significant financial risks and the mismanagement of state assets [3][10][12]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Jin joined the Communist Party of China in September 2004 and held positions including deputy director of the B District Management Committee [4]. - From 2015 to 2020, Jin illegally accepted bribes totaling 1.23 million yuan [5]. - In 2021, Jin made unauthorized payments of over 5.26 million yuan to Company C for equipment that was never delivered, despite knowing the associated financial risks [5][9]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - On June 19, 2024, the A City Discipline Inspection Commission initiated an investigation into Jin's serious violations [6]. - Jin was expelled from the Party and removed from public office on September 9, 2024, and subsequently charged with bribery and abuse of power [7]. - On October 24, 2024, the D District People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Jin [8]. Legal Analysis and Opinions - There are differing opinions on whether Jin's actions constitute a violation of work discipline or abuse of power. The second opinion, which is favored, argues that his actions meet the criteria for abuse of power under criminal law [10][11]. - Jin's actions resulted in significant losses to state assets, which is a key factor in determining the severity of his offenses [12][13]. Financial Loss Assessment - Between 2018 and 2021, the B District Management Committee made two payments totaling over 9.86 million yuan to Company C, with 5.26 million yuan being paid without proper authorization [14]. - The total loss incurred due to Jin's actions is recognized as exceeding 5.26 million yuan, with some funds recovered post-investigation [16][17]. Sentencing Considerations - Jin's case includes elements of both self-reporting and cooperation with authorities, which may influence sentencing. His actions during the investigation, including confessing to previously undisclosed bribery, are considered mitigating factors [18][19].