精密的犯罪集团，怀疑以贪腐手段造市，操纵一家上市公司的股份。被捕人士涉嫌串谋使用载有虚假资 料的文件，包括上市公司内部文件及公告，讹称该上市公司与一家内地企业达成股份认购协议，并与该 企业发展联营项目，涉款共逾2,000万港元。有关人士又涉嫌透过多个代名人帐户，操控该上市公司的 股价造市。由于调查仍在进行，证监会与廉署不会作进一步评论。涉案上市公司自2025年3月起已暂停 股份买卖，并已被法院颁令清盘。 香港证监会与廉署采取联合行动打击涉嫌市场操纵及贪污行为拘上市公司两前高层 金十数据7月25日讯，香港证监会与廉政公署2025年7月23日采取代号"杠杆"的联合行动，打击一个运作 ...

综上，对于沈某上述行为，应当以单位受贿100万元、单位行贿18万元、贪污15万元，三罪并罚追究其 刑事责任。（施展，作者单位：上海市静安区纪委监委） 本案中，针对A单位接受张某100万元"捐款"行为如何定性，存在不同认识。第一种观点认为，应当认 定沈某通过A单位接受张某100万元行为构成受贿罪，不论沈某出于何种目的，其向张某索要"捐款"100 万元，构成索贿。沈某经单位党组会议讨论、通过接受"捐款"方式收受好处，只是以合法形式掩盖其索 要财物的非法目的，应将100万元评价为沈某个人受贿数额。同时，沈某为了单位利益送给相关国家工 作人员18万元，应评价沈某此行为构成单位行贿罪。因此，对其应以受贿罪和单位行贿罪数罪并罚。第 二种观点认为，沈某要求张某"捐款"是为了单位利益，单位党组会议上其他党组成员也表示同意，并且 单位作为接受主体获得了100万元，因此该100万元应当认定为单位受贿罪所得。之后沈某将18万元用于 向相关国家工作人员送好处，应评价为单位行贿罪。其个人私自占有15万元构成贪污罪。对其应数罪并 罚。笔者同意第二种观点。 作人员行贿，并且此行为是单位受贿罪既遂后，沈某另起犯意而为，因此，应单独评价构成单 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the misappropriation of state-owned assets by a management team in a state-owned joint venture, highlighting the legal interpretations of their actions and the appropriate charges against them [1][2][6]. Group 1: Case Background - Chen, appointed by the A City Transportation Committee, served as the Party Secretary and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Company B, which is a limited liability company with 50% state-owned and 50% private capital [1]. - Between 2012 and 2014, Chen and other executives illegally distributed a total of over 7.98 million yuan under the guise of "performance rewards" to management personnel, with Chen personally receiving over 940,000 yuan [1]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Three differing legal opinions exist regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Some argue it constitutes joint embezzlement due to the illegal appropriation of state funds [2]. 2. Others believe it amounts to the illegal distribution of state-owned assets [2]. 3. The prevailing view is that it constitutes abuse of power by state-owned enterprise personnel, as it resulted in significant losses to state interests [2][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - The actions do not meet the criteria for embezzlement as defined by Article 382 of the Criminal Law, which pertains to individual actions rather than collective decisions made by a unit [3]. - The behavior also does not qualify as the illegal distribution of state-owned assets under Article 396, as Company B is a joint venture and not a wholly state-owned entity [4][5]. - Chen's actions are classified as abuse of power under Article 168, as he violated his duties and caused significant losses to state interests [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around the actions of Che, who used Company A's name to "invest" in Company B, ultimately obtaining over 4.15 million yuan in "dividends," raising questions about whether this constitutes a violation of business regulations or embezzlement [2][18]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Che joined the Communist Party in June 1994 and served as the chairman and general manager of Company A, a state-owned enterprise, until his retirement in October 2021 [3]. Embezzlement Details - In October 2013, Che arranged for an employee to register Company B under his name, with a registered capital of 1 million yuan, which was loaned from a state-owned small loan company [4]. - Company B was managed by Company A's asset management department and was used as a tool for external business operations [4][5]. - In 2014, Che manipulated the financing service contracts to benefit Company B, which he knew was profitable and low-risk, and decided to "invest" in Company B to extract its profits [5]. Financial Transactions and Control - From March to December 2015, Che facilitated the transfer of 50% of Company B's shares to Company A and its management team without any payment, maintaining control over the company [6]. - Between September 2016 and March 2017, Che received over 4.15 million yuan in dividends from Company B based on a 30% shareholding [6]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation into Che's actions began on June 27, 2023, leading to his detention and subsequent legal actions, including a public prosecution for embezzlement [8][9][10]. - On January 11, 2024, the court sentenced Che to 11 years and 6 months in prison for embezzlement, along with a fine of 1.3 million yuan [11]. Company Nature and Legal Implications - There are differing opinions on whether Company B is a state-owned enterprise or a private company, but evidence suggests it is controlled by Company A, thus qualifying as a state-owned entity [13][14][17]. - Che's actions, including undervaluing Company B's shares and using its funds for personal gain, are classified as embezzlement under the law [22][25]. Conclusion on Che's Actions - Che's investment in Company B was deemed a means to unlawfully acquire state-owned assets, constituting embezzlement rather than a legitimate business activity [21][25].

据最高检7月3日消息，宁夏回族自治区政协原党组书记、主席齐同生涉嫌受贿一案，由国家 监察委员会调查终结，经最高人民检察院依法指定，由广西壮族自治区南宁市人民检察院审 查起诉。近日，南宁市人民检察院已向南宁市中级人民法院提起公诉。 检察机关在审查起诉阶段，依法告知了被告人齐同生享有的诉讼权利，并讯问了被告人，听 取了辩护人的意见。 检察机关起诉指控： 被告人齐同生利用 担任宁夏回族自治区发展和改革委员会党组书记、主任，自治区政府副主 席，自治区党委常委、政府副主席，自治区政协党组书记、主席，全国政协民族和宗教委员 会副主任 等职务 上的便利，以及职权或者地位形成的便利条件，为他人谋取利益，非法收受 他人财物，数额特别巨大，依法应当以受贿罪追究其刑事责任。 无视中央八项规定精神，违规接受宴请； 违规收受礼金； 贪婪腐化，恣意妄为，将公权力作为谋取私利的工具，搞权钱交易，利用职务便利为他人在 采矿权证办理、工程承揽等方面谋利，并非法收受巨额财物。 延伸阅读—— 最高法、最高检《关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》规定：贪污或者受 贿数额在三百万元以上的，应当认定为刑法第三百八十三条第一款规定的"数额特别 ...

Group 1 - The core argument revolves around the classification of village cadres as state workers based on their engagement in public duties, particularly in the context of land expropriation and compensation [1][9] - Case one illustrates a scenario where village cadre A and official B conspired to fraudulently obtain over 5 million yuan in compensation by fabricating population and land area documents, raising questions about their legal accountability [2][4] - Case two involves cadre C, who improperly allocated compensation to individuals not entitled to it, resulting in over 5 million yuan in losses, highlighting the misuse of authority in local governance [3][5] Group 2 - There are differing opinions on the legal classification of the actions taken by cadres A and C, with one view suggesting they committed abuse of power, while another argues for the classification of their actions as embezzlement [4][14] - The distinction between public duties and village management is crucial in determining the legal status of village cadres, as their actions may fall under different legal frameworks depending on their engagement in governmental functions [7][9] - The analysis emphasizes that the nature of the funds involved—whether they are public or collective assets—plays a significant role in determining the applicable legal consequences for the actions of the village cadres [12][13]

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 Points - The case involves three individuals (A, B, C) conspiring to falsely inflate seed procurement quantities, resulting in an overpayment of 120,000 yuan to Company C, which they later divided among themselves [5][9][10] - A, while serving as the head of the Agricultural Technology Promotion Station, engaged in corrupt practices, including embezzlement and bribery, totaling 2.08 million yuan in bribes and 460,000 yuan in collusion with another employee [6][12][14] - The investigation led to A being expelled from the party and public office, with subsequent criminal charges filed for embezzlement, bribery, and collusion [7][18][20] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - A was responsible for a seed procurement contract, where he, along with B and C, conspired to create a false procurement quantity, leading to an illegal return of 120,000 yuan [4][5] - A's actions included receiving bribes from multiple suppliers, totaling 2.08 million yuan over a decade [6][12] Investigation Process - The investigation began on September 25, 2023, with A being placed under detention, followed by disciplinary actions and criminal charges [7][19] - A was convicted on April 30, 2025, receiving a combined sentence of seven years in prison and a fine of 550,000 yuan [7][18] Legal Interpretations - The actions of A, B, and C were classified as joint embezzlement rather than bribery, as they involved the illegal appropriation of public funds [8][9] - The court determined that A and another employee, D, engaged in joint bribery, with A being the principal actor and D playing a secondary role [15][16]

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is investigating a corruption case involving a residential development project by Cheung Kong Property Holdings Limited, led by Li Ka-shing, due to allegations of bribery and falsification of construction records [2][3][4]. Group 1: Project Details - The implicated project is located at Anderson Road in Kwun Tong, developed by Cheung Kong Property, which acquired the land for HKD 49.5 billion in May 2020 [2][6]. - The project plans to construct six buildings with nearly 3,000 residential units, with at least 1,000 units to be sold at a 20% discount for first-time homebuyers [2][6]. - The project is part of the Hong Kong government's initiative to assist permanent residents in achieving home ownership [6][7]. Group 2: Corruption Allegations - The ICAC's investigation revealed that a subcontractor allegedly deviated from approved engineering designs to save costs and bribed supervisory personnel to overlook these deviations [3][4]. - The subcontractor reportedly provided bribes, gifts, and covered luxury entertainment expenses for the supervisory staff to ensure lenient oversight of the construction work [3][4]. - A total of 10 individuals, aged between 29 and 52, have been arrested in connection with the case, facing charges of bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and use of false documents [4][5]. Group 3: Regulatory Context - Registered contractors and building professionals have a legal responsibility for the quality and safety of construction work, which includes verifying compliance with approved designs [3][4]. - The ICAC has previously dealt with multiple construction-related fraud cases, indicating a broader issue within the industry [5]. Group 4: Project Timeline and Compliance - The land sale agreement stipulates that the project must be completed by March 31, 2026 [8]. - Cheung Kong Property has stated that it is reviewing the project's engineering status and is in discussions with the Buildings Department regarding appropriate follow-up actions [8].

年初以来，香港开埠后第三任首富李嘉诚可谓是备受关注，因为这位已经将近100岁的商界翘楚不顾家 国利益，公然想要贩卖全世界各地的众多港口给老美财团，所以他依然成为了很多人口中没有商德、忘 恩负义的资本家。 对于李嘉诚的这种行径，我国不仅出言警告，更是采取了一系列措施，所以之后李嘉诚售卖港口事件也 渐渐平息了下去，不过就在最近李嘉诚旗下的集团还是出事了。 近日，港府开展了一个行动，揪出了一起贪污受贿事件，并立即逮捕了10个人，而这起事件就发生在李 嘉诚旗下的公司。 看到这，很多网友不禁发出疑问，港府出手真的只抓这10个人就会结束吗？这会不会是针对李嘉诚的一 个开始？这起贪污受贿事件真相又是如何？ 民生楼盘拔地而起 在2017年，香港前任行政区长官郑月娥为了满足中产家庭的购房需求，计划实行港人首置上车盘计划。 而这一计划在2020年终于开始落地了，当时港府确定了香港第二个首次置业项目选址就在观塘安达臣 道。 之后这个项目就被李嘉诚旗下的长实集团以49.51亿港元的价格竞得，楼面地价约为4546港元/平方尺， 预计落成日期为2026年9月30日。 根据当时的开发建设规划，这个项目一共将建造6栋楼、近3000户住宅，而 ...