甲乙双方对以租赁形式掩盖权钱交易均心知肚明。从客观方面看，甲多次利用职务便利为乙谋取利益， 为了收受其好处，要求并无租赁需求的乙承租其商铺，并在明知B公司实际未使用的情况下，仍以租金 名义收受乙支付的38.4万元，该笔款项直接源于甲为乙提供的帮助，是甲职务行为的对价，甲、乙的行 为本质上是权钱交易。 其次，甲、乙之间的租赁行为明显不符合正常市场逻辑，实质是利益输送的幌子。甲凭借职权优势地 位，单方面确定租金价格和租期，且完全规避了房屋空置、市场波动等出租方通常需承担的风险。乙作 为有求于甲的行政管理对象，在明知商铺对其无使用价值的情况下，仍主动接受该不公平的安排，根本 动机在于感谢甲并维系关系。甲选择对其有"感谢"需求的乙作为"承租人"，以及租赁合同签订后，该商 铺长期空置的客观事实，均清晰表明所谓租赁只是定向输送利益的伪装，并非民事法律行为。 再次，受贿数额应按甲收到的全部"租金"认定。第二种观点主张对该商铺的市场租赁价进行鉴定，并在 计算受贿数额时扣除市场价对应的租金。笔者不赞同此观点。判断行为性质应抓住本质，正常的租赁关 系中，承租人以实际使用房屋为目的，反观本案，乙既无真实的租赁需求，也从未实际使用该 ...

8月25日，67岁的中国农行原副行长楼文龙在福建省泉州市中级人民法院接受一审宣判：以受贿罪被判处无期徒 刑。法院查实，其受贿8451万余元。 楼文龙在金融行业干了一辈子，早年在央行浙江分行及原中国银监会工作，曾任北京银监局局长， 2012年任中国 农业银行副行长，2017年4月辞任。2024年4月，中央第十巡视组进驻中国农业银行开展常规巡视，一个月后，卸 任已7年的楼文龙官宣被查，同年11月被开除党籍。中纪委通报称，楼文龙"靠金融吃金融"，大搞权钱交易，利用 职务便利为他人在监管审批、投资入股、融资授信、项目承揽等方面谋利，并非法收受巨额财物。 公开履历显示，楼文龙，1958年1月出生，浙江省诸暨市人。 他从浙江银行学校（现为浙江金融职业学院）毕业之后，留校任教，在校工作多年后，调任中国人民银行浙江省 分行机关团委书记，走上金融仕途，在央行浙江分行仕途顺利，先后任副处长、处长。 1998年，央行上海分行成立，同时在杭州、福州两地设立金融监管办事处，楼文龙获任杭州金融监管办事处银行 检查处处长、助理特派员。 2002年，楼文龙进京担任建行监管组副组长。一年后，中国银监会成立，楼文龙转任银监会监管二部副主任，后 ...

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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal classification of a case involving a public official, highlighting the distinction between bribery and fraud in the context of influence peddling [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a public official (甲) who accepted 1 million yuan from a private entrepreneur (乙) in exchange for a promise to influence another official (丙) to assist乙 in avoiding criminal charges [1][2]. - There are three differing opinions on how to classify 甲's actions: as fraud, as attempted bribery, or as completed bribery [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Framework - According to Article 388 of the Criminal Law, public officials who use their position to obtain improper benefits for others and accept money can be charged with bribery, specifically influence peddling [2][5]. - Influence peddling is not a separate crime but a form of bribery that protects the integrity of public officials' duties [2][4]. Group 3: Analysis of Actions - 甲's actions meet the criteria for using his position to provide improper benefits, as he had the potential to influence丙 due to their relationship [3][5]. - The payment of 1 million yuan was based on 乙's trust in 甲's influence, indicating a direct relationship between the payment and 甲's position [6]. Group 4: Conclusion - The article concludes that 甲's acceptance of the payment, despite not having communicated with丙, constitutes completed influence peddling, as the act of accepting the money itself indicates a breach of duty [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of new forms of corruption, particularly focusing on the case of a public official who facilitated a consulting company to disguise illicit financial transactions under the guise of legitimate consulting services [1][5]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Li, a director at the A Province Market Supervision Administration, helped his associate Wang establish a consulting company to improve Wang's financial situation [2]. - Wang's company, B, was set up to provide consulting services related to standardization, but it lacked the necessary expertise and resources [3]. Nature of Services Provided - B Company did not deliver genuine consulting services as per the contracts signed with project applicants, leading to additional costs for those applicants to seek real consulting services elsewhere [3][11]. - The services provided were superficial and did not meet the standards of legitimate consulting practices, indicating that B Company was essentially a "shell company" [10][12]. Legal Opinions and Analysis - There are differing opinions on whether Li and Wang's actions constitute legitimate business operations or corruption. The second opinion, which is favored, argues that their actions were a coordinated effort to disguise bribery under the pretense of consulting services [5][6]. - The establishment of B Company was primarily for the purpose of facilitating bribery, as evidenced by the lack of genuine business operations and the nature of the services provided [9][10]. Criminal Implications - Li and Wang's actions are classified as joint bribery, as they conspired to use the consulting company as a front for receiving illicit payments [13][14]. - The total amount received by Wang, approximately 9 million yuan, is considered to be part of the bribery scheme, with Li having a general awareness of the financial transactions involved [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the efforts of Chongqing's disciplinary inspection and supervision agencies to combat new and hidden forms of corruption, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches and the use of big data for detection and investigation [2][3][6]. Group 1: New and Hidden Corruption Cases - Cases of new and hidden corruption in Chongqing include instances where individuals disguise corrupt activities, such as a hospital department head receiving bribes under the guise of borrowing and a local official using relatives as "money-laundering" proxies [2][3]. - The shift from direct bribery to more complex and deceptive forms of corruption complicates investigations, as offenders attempt to sever the connection between their official duties and the receipt of illicit benefits [3][4]. Group 2: Investigation Techniques - Chongqing's disciplinary agencies are employing big data analysis and collaborative efforts with various professional bodies to enhance the identification and investigation of corruption cases [3][4][5]. - For example, in a case involving the sports bureau, investigators identified discrepancies in electricity costs related to a sports event, which led to the uncovering of embezzlement [4]. Group 3: Challenges in Defining Corruption - The article highlights the challenges faced in defining and categorizing new forms of corruption, necessitating collaboration with auditing and legal professionals to ensure accurate assessments [5][6]. - A specific case illustrates how a retired official's actions were initially difficult to classify, but thorough evidence collection and legal interpretation ultimately led to a successful prosecution for bribery [5]. Group 4: Capacity Building - The article emphasizes the need for continuous improvement in the capabilities of disciplinary inspection agencies, including the establishment of expert databases and specialized training programs to enhance investigative skills [6]. - Efforts include targeted training sessions and practical exercises to strengthen the understanding of complex corruption cases among investigators [6].

Group 1 - Li Aiqing, former chairman of Beijing Capital Group, was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve for bribery and abuse of power, marking a significant case in the capital's corporate governance [1][6][7] - The total amount of bribes Li Aiqing received exceeded 200 million yuan, making it the largest bribery case uncovered by the Beijing Supervisory Commission since the reform of the supervisory system [7][8] - Li Aiqing held leadership positions in major state-owned enterprises in Beijing for 18 years, significantly impacting the local economy and governance [4][5][6] Group 2 - The Beijing State-owned Assets Management Company, where Li served as chairman, is a key player in managing and operating government assets, with a focus on capital operation and investment [5][6] - Beijing Capital Group, another major enterprise under Li's leadership, specializes in environmental protection, real estate, infrastructure, and financial services, boasting total assets exceeding 400 billion yuan by the end of 2020 [5][6] - Li's actions led to significant losses for state-owned assets, highlighting the risks associated with concentrated power in state-owned enterprises [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The trial of Li Zhiming, former Party Secretary and Chairman of Guizhou Bank, for bribery and illegal loan issuance has commenced, highlighting significant governance issues within the bank [2][5]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Li Zhiming is accused of accepting bribes totaling over RMB 43.1 million and illegally facilitating loans amounting to over RMB 304.62 million from 2018 to 2020, despite knowing the companies did not meet loan conditions [5]. - The court proceedings included evidence presentation by the prosecution and statements from both the defense and the accused, with the court announcing a recess for a future verdict [5]. Group 2: Background of Li Zhiming - Li Zhiming has a long career in banking, having served in various roles including Assistant President and Vice President at Hubei Bank before joining Guizhou Bank in December 2017 [6]. - Under his leadership, Guizhou Bank went public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2019, but he resigned from his positions in January 2021 due to government work arrangements [6]. Group 3: Recent Developments in Guizhou Bank - The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection reported that Li Zhiming was expelled from the Party in September 2024, with his case being transferred to the judiciary for prosecution [6]. - Guizhou Bank has faced additional scrutiny with the recent dismissal of its former Deputy Party Secretary and President, Xu An, for similar misconduct involving the misuse of power for personal gain [6]. Group 4: Company Profile - Guizhou Bank, established on October 11, 2012, is a major state-owned enterprise in Guizhou Province, ranking 46th in the 2023 China Banking Association's list of the top 100 banks [7]. - Recent personnel changes at Guizhou Bank have raised market concerns, including the resignation of three proposed directors due to delays in regulatory approval [7]. Group 5: Market Performance - As of June 25, Guizhou Bank's stock price was reported at HKD 1.11 per share, with a total market capitalization of HKD 16.193 billion [8].

Group 1 - The article discusses the legal distinctions and similarities between bribery and embezzlement in the context of a specific case involving a hospital department head and a drug dealer [1][3] - The case highlights the complexities of determining whether certain funds should be classified as unit bribery or personal embezzlement, particularly regarding the payment of 180,000 yuan for the head's daughter's salary and social insurance [2][4][6] - Different viewpoints exist on how to classify the 180,000 yuan payment, with one perspective arguing it should be considered as part of unit bribery, while another suggests it constitutes embezzlement due to the misappropriation of unit funds [3][5][7] Group 2 - The article emphasizes that for a crime to be classified as unit bribery, the funds must be controlled and owned by the unit, which was not the case in this instance [4][5] - It is argued that the 180,000 yuan payment does not qualify as embezzlement since the funds were never under the unit's control or ownership, thus not infringing on public property rights [6] - Ultimately, the article concludes that the 180,000 yuan should be classified as personal bribery for the department head, as the transaction was a result of a new agreement between him and the drug dealer [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the complexities of defining the nature of gift exchanges between state officials and clients, emphasizing the need to accurately distinguish between legitimate gift-giving and bribery based on various factors such as the context, value, and intent behind the exchanges [1][7]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - The case involves a communication management bureau head (甲) and his wife (乙), who accepted bribes from a private technology company manager (丙) over a period from 2007 to 2019, utilizing their official positions to benefit丙's company [2][3]. Disputed Opinions - Three opinions exist regarding the nature of the financial exchanges: 1. Some argue that the exchanges were merely traditional gift-giving, not constituting bribery [4]. 2. Others believe the exchanges exceeded normal social interactions and should be classified as bribery, with a potential deduction for gifts given to丙 [5]. 3. The third opinion asserts that all exchanges should be classified as bribery without deductions, as they reflect a clear pattern of corruption [6][5]. Analysis of Opinions - The article supports the third opinion, arguing that the exchanges between甲,乙, and丙 were not genuine gift-giving but rather indicative of a bribery scheme, as they involved significant financial transactions and were linked to specific requests for favors [6][9]. Nature of Financial Exchanges - The nature of the exchanges is analyzed through several lenses: - The lack of a genuine personal relationship between the parties involved [8]. - The disproportionate value of gifts exchanged, which far exceeded typical gift-giving norms [8]. - The timing and purpose of the exchanges, which were closely tied to requests for favors, indicating a clear intent to engage in bribery [9]. Legal Considerations - The article discusses legal interpretations regarding whether the gifts should be deducted from the total amount considered for bribery charges, concluding that the exchanges should be treated as separate bribery incidents [10][12]. Joint Bribery Charges - The article concludes that both甲 and乙 should be charged with joint bribery, with the total amount received from丙 being 630 million yuan, reflecting their collaborative efforts in the bribery scheme [16].