来源：央视新闻 政事儿 9月28日，吉林省长春市中级人民法院一审公开宣判农业农村部原党组书记、部长唐仁健受贿一案， 对被告人唐仁健以受贿罪判处死刑， 缓期二年执行，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产 ；对追缴在案的唐仁健犯罪所得财物及孳息依法上缴国库，不足部分继续追 缴。 经审理查明： 2007年至2024年，被告人唐仁健利用担任中央财经领导小组办公室副主任、中央农村工作领导小组办公室副主任，广西壮 族自治区党委常委、自治区人民政府副主席，中央农村工作领导小组副组长兼办公室主任，甘肃省委副书记、省长，农业农村部党组书 记、部长等职务上的便利以及职权、地位形成的便利条件，为有关单位和个人在企业经营、工程承揽、职务调整等事项上提供帮助，直接 或者通过他人非法收受上述单位和个人给予的财物，共计折合人民币2.68亿余元。 长春市中级人民法院认为，被告人唐仁健的行为构成受贿罪，受贿数额特别巨大，并使国家和人民利益遭受特别重大损失，论罪应当判处 死刑。鉴于唐仁健受贿犯罪中有未遂情节；到案后如实供述罪行，主动交代办案机关尚未掌握的大部分受贿事实；认罪悔罪，积极退赃， 赃款赃物大部分已追缴，具有法定、酌定从宽处罚情节，对 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the conviction of Guan Qingliang, former secretary of the Xiu Wen County Committee, for bribery, highlighting the severity of his actions and the legal consequences he faced [1][3][6]. Summary by Sections Case Details - Guan Qingliang was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months in prison and fined 1.3 million RMB for accepting bribes totaling over 29.8 million RMB from 2014 to 2024 [1][3]. - The court found that Guan used his official positions to gain benefits for individuals and entities in project contracting and fund disbursement [3][6]. Misconduct and Violations - During his tenure, Guan publicly opposed anti-corruption efforts and undermined democratic centralism, consolidating power for personal gain [4][5]. - He engaged in corrupt practices, including using his sister as a proxy to hide illicit business activities and assets [4][5]. Disciplinary Actions - Guan was expelled from the party and public office due to severe violations of political, organizational, and ethical disciplines, as well as for engaging in corrupt activities post-18th National Congress [5][6]. - His actions included accepting gifts, misappropriating project funds, and failing to report significant matters as required [5][6]. Background Information - Guan Qingliang, born in November 1979, held various positions in the Bijie region before being appointed as the secretary of the Xiu Wen County Committee in 2021 [6].

Core Points - The case of Ma Fengsheng, former Vice Chairman of the Qinghai Provincial Political Consultative Conference, has been concluded by the National Supervisory Commission and transferred to the prosecution for review and indictment [1] - The Supreme People's Procuratorate has made an arrest decision against Ma Fengsheng for suspected bribery, designating the Lanzhou People's Procuratorate in Gansu Province to handle the case [1] - The Lanzhou People's Procuratorate has filed a public prosecution with the Lanzhou Intermediate People's Court [1] Summary by Sections - **Investigation and Prosecution** - The investigation into Ma Fengsheng's alleged bribery has been completed and sent to the prosecution for further action [1] - The Supreme People's Procuratorate has formally arrested Ma Fengsheng on charges of bribery [1] - **Charges and Allegations** - Ma Fengsheng is accused of using his positions, including Deputy Secretary and County Head of Xunhua County, Deputy Commissioner of Haidong Prefecture, and other roles, to facilitate illegal benefits for others [1] - The prosecution alleges that he accepted bribes amounting to a particularly large sum, warranting criminal responsibility under bribery laws [1]

中央纪委国家监委网站 方弈霏 特邀嘉宾 刘严泽 重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委第五纪检监察室主任 李某某，曾任A市B公司（系A市C区人民政府国有资产监督管理委员会出资成立的国有独资公司）党委书 记、董事长等职。 胡 磊 重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委案件审理室主任 甘永霞 重庆市沙坪坝区人民检察院检察二部副主任 王志锋 重庆市沙坪坝区人民法院刑事审判庭副庭长 编者按 本案中，李某某利用职务便利，安排下属帮助其胞妹李某与他人合伙承揽其所在国企下属单位的工程项目， 李某实际投资经营后获利125万元，李某某的行为如何定性？经李某转达请托，李某某帮助刘某承揽工程项 目，且明知李某在不实际出资以及参与经营管理情况下获得刘某给予的"利润分红"，李某某此行为应如何定 性？李某在李某某帮助下与他人合伙承揽工程项目，真实出资并参与经营，但多获"分红"327万元，是否应计 入李某某的受贿数额？我们特邀相关单位工作人员予以解析。 图为重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委工作人员进行研讨。谢静逸 摄 基本案情： 违反廉洁纪律。2020年至2022年，李某某利用担任B公司党委书记、董事长的职务便利，安排下属帮助其胞 妹李某与他人合伙承接了B公司下属全资子公司D公司 ...

Core Points - The Guilin Intermediate People's Court sentenced Liu Xingtai, former Deputy Director of the Hainan Provincial People's Congress Standing Committee, to death with a two-year reprieve for bribery, along with lifelong deprivation of political rights and confiscation of all personal property [1][7] - Liu Xingtai was found guilty of accepting bribes totaling over 316 million RMB from 2003 to 2024 while holding various official positions, providing assistance to related entities and individuals in business operations and fund allocations [2][3] - The court acknowledged mitigating circumstances, including Liu's confession, active restitution of embezzled funds, and significant contributions in exposing other major crimes, which led to a lighter sentence [7][10] Summary by Sections - **Court Decision**: Liu Xingtai received a death sentence with a two-year reprieve, lifelong political rights deprivation, and confiscation of all personal assets [1][7] - **Bribery Details**: Liu accepted bribes exceeding 316 million RMB through his various official roles, facilitating business and financial operations for others [2][3] - **Mitigating Factors**: The court considered Liu's confession, restitution efforts, and cooperation with authorities in its sentencing decision [7][10]

Core Viewpoint - The case of Lou Wenlong, former vice president of Agricultural Bank of China, highlights significant corruption within the banking regulatory framework, resulting in a severe legal penalty for the accused [1][4]. Summary by Sections Case Details - Lou Wenlong was sentenced to life imprisonment for accepting bribes totaling over 84.51 million RMB from 2005 to 2024 while holding various high-ranking positions in banking supervision and management [3][4]. - The court found that his actions constituted a particularly serious crime, causing substantial losses to the state and the public [4]. Court Proceedings - The trial was held on June 6, 2025, with evidence presented by the prosecution and a thorough examination of the case by both sides [4]. - Lou Wenlong admitted to his crimes, expressed remorse, and cooperated with authorities by returning all illicit gains, which contributed to a potential reduction in his sentence [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Lou Wenlong, former vice president of the Agricultural Bank of China, highlights significant corruption within the banking regulatory framework, resulting in a life sentence for accepting bribes totaling over 84.51 million yuan [4][5]. Group 1: Case Details - Lou Wenlong was sentenced to life imprisonment for accepting bribes amounting to over 84.51 million yuan from 2005 to 2024 while holding various positions in banking regulation [4][5]. - The court found that his actions caused significant losses to the state and the public, constituting a particularly serious crime [4][5]. - The court acknowledged mitigating factors such as his confession and the return of illicit gains, which influenced the sentencing [5]. Group 2: Background Information - Lou Wenlong, born in January 1958, held several key positions in banking supervision, including director of the Banking Regulatory Department and vice president of the Agricultural Bank of China [7]. - His career spanned various roles within the People's Bank of China and the China Banking Regulatory Commission, indicating a long-standing involvement in the banking sector [7]. Group 3: Disciplinary Actions - Following an investigation, Lou was expelled from the Communist Party for serious violations of political and organizational discipline, including accepting bribes and failing to report personal matters truthfully [6]. - His case has been referred to the prosecutorial authorities for further legal action, emphasizing the severity of his misconduct [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the complexities surrounding the criminalization of state officials profiting from directed share placements, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations focusing on the nature of the transactions and the motivations behind them [1][5][11]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Wang, a former state-owned enterprise leader, and Li, the actual controller of a private investment company, developed a relationship that led to Wang facilitating Li's access to share placements [2][3]. - In 2014, Wang used his position to allocate shares from a state-owned company to Li's firm, which had previously been denied access [2]. Disputed Opinions - There are differing views on whether Wang's actions constitute bribery, with some arguing that the investment was a normal business opportunity, while others assert it was a clear case of bribery due to the nature of the transaction [5][6][11]. Analysis of Opinions - The article argues that the relationship between Wang and Li was not a legitimate market transaction but rather a form of power-for-money exchange, as Wang's actions were influenced by his official capacity [8][9][10]. - Wang's acquisition of shares was characterized by a lack of market risk, as Li guaranteed profits, which deviates from typical investment behavior [10][12]. Determining Bribery Amount - The article suggests that the total profit Wang received should be considered as the bribe amount, as it was a direct result of the power-for-money transaction [11][12]. - It emphasizes that the nature of the shares acquired by Wang was such that they were not typically accessible to ordinary investors, reinforcing the argument of an improper exchange [12][15][16].

Group 1 - The case of Xiao Yi, a former executive manager of a state-owned enterprise, highlights severe violations of legal and ethical standards, including bribery and corruption [1][4] - Xiao Yi's actions included accepting gifts and entertainment from management and service objects, and using his position to facilitate project contracts and fund allocations in exchange for illegal benefits [4][5] - The disciplinary actions taken against Xiao Yi included expulsion from the Communist Party, removal from public office, and referral to the prosecution for criminal charges, reflecting the serious nature of his misconduct [4][2] Group 2 - The incident serves as a cautionary tale for other employees in state-owned enterprises, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards to avoid severe consequences [1][4] - The educational approach taken by the local disciplinary committee, which involved direct exposure to the courtroom proceedings, aims to instill a stronger sense of accountability and awareness among employees [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to regulations regarding misconduct, particularly in the context of public officials accepting gifts or benefits, highlighting the need for accountability and integrity in governance [1][2]. Group 1: Misconduct and Accountability - The article discusses the harmful effects of misconduct, particularly in the context of public officials accepting gifts, and stresses that even retired officials should face disciplinary actions if they engage in such behavior [1]. - A case involving a public hospital's vice president accepting "red envelopes" from medical equipment suppliers is examined, with the focus on whether this constitutes bribery or merely a gift [2]. - The article illustrates the necessity of thorough investigations to determine the nature of relationships between officials and suppliers, emphasizing that the absence of explicit profit motives does not absolve officials from accountability [2]. Group 2: Decision-Making and Responsibility - The article presents a case where two officials were held accountable for purchasing faulty gas alarm systems, despite their claims of ignorance regarding the technical specifications [3][4]. - It highlights the importance of understanding the technical aspects of procurement and the implications of decisions made by officials, suggesting that accountability should be balanced with the context of their actions [5]. - The article concludes with a discussion on the need for careful consideration in disciplinary actions, advocating for a nuanced approach that recognizes the complexities of decision-making in public service [6].