吉林检察机关依法对张巍涉嫌贪污、国有公司人员滥用职权、受贿案提起公诉 央视网消息：据"最高人民检察院"微信公众号消息，检察机关依法分别对胡延生、张巍、潘发勇提起公 诉。 吉林检察机关依法对胡延生涉嫌受贿案提起公诉 日前，吉林省委巡视组原副组长、巡视专员胡延生（正厅级）涉嫌受贿罪一案，由吉林省监察委员会调 查终结，移送检察机关审查起诉。经吉林省人民检察院指定管辖，由白城市人民检察院依法向白城市中 级人民法院提起公诉。案件正在进一步办理中。 检察机关在审查起诉阶段，依法告知了被告人胡延生享有的诉讼权利，并依法讯问了被告人，听取了辩 护人意见。白城市人民检察院起诉指控：被告人胡延生利用担任长春市财政局局长、吉林省委巡视组副 组长等职务上的便利，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。 检察机关在审查起诉阶段，依法告知了被告人潘发勇享有的诉讼权利，并依法讯问了被告人，听取了辩 护人的意见。黔东南州人民检察院起诉指控：被告人潘发勇利用担任毕节织金循环经济新区党工委委 员、管委会副主任，毕节市工业和能源委员会党组书记、主任，织金县委副书记、县长等职务便利，为 他人谋取利益，非法收 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Li Quan, former chairman of New China Life Insurance Co., highlights significant corruption within the company, resulting in severe legal consequences for the individual involved [1][5]. Summary by Sections Case Details - Li Quan was sentenced to life imprisonment for embezzlement and death penalty with a two-year reprieve for bribery, along with the confiscation of all personal property [1]. - The court found that from June 2015 to March 2024, Li Quan illegally appropriated business profits totaling over 108 million RMB through deceitful means [3]. - From 2010 to 2023, he received bribes amounting to over 105 million RMB by leveraging his position to assist various entities in business collaborations and fund subscriptions [3]. Court Ruling - The court deemed Li Quan's actions as constituting both embezzlement and bribery, with particularly large amounts causing significant losses to the state and public interests, warranting severe punishment [5]. - Mitigating factors included his confession, cooperation with authorities, and the return of embezzled and bribed funds, which led to a lighter sentence [5]. Trial Proceedings - The trial was held on May 14, 2025, with evidence presented by the prosecution and Li Quan's defense team engaging in cross-examination [7]. - The proceedings were attended by over 30 individuals, including representatives from the National People's Congress, political advisors, and family members of the defendant [7].

Core Points - The former Vice Chairman of the Heilongjiang Provincial People's Congress, Li Xianggang, was sentenced to life imprisonment for bribery and embezzlement, with all personal assets confiscated and a fine of 300,000 RMB imposed for embezzlement [1][2] - Li Xianggang was found guilty of accepting bribes totaling over 117 million RMB and embezzling public funds amounting to over 1.68 million RMB through real estate transactions [2] Summary by Sections Legal Proceedings - The Dalian Intermediate People's Court publicly announced the verdict on November 17, 2023, after Li Xianggang was tried in May 2023, where he confessed to his crimes [1][2] - The court emphasized the severity of Li's actions, which caused significant losses to the state and the public [2] Background Information - Li Xianggang held various significant positions, including Mayor and Party Secretary of Shuangyashan City, Secretary-General of the Heilongjiang Provincial Government, and Vice Chairman of the Heilongjiang Provincial People's Congress from 2006 to 2024 [2] - He was investigated in March 2024 and subsequently expelled from the Party and public office in September 2024 [1] Financial Details - The total amount of bribes accepted by Li was over 117 million RMB, with specific instances of embezzlement involving high-priced sales and low-priced purchases of real estate [2] - The court noted that Li's cooperation during the investigation and his return of embezzled funds were considered mitigating factors in his sentencing [2]

Core Points - The article discusses the sentencing of Li Xiangang, a former deputy director of the Heilongjiang Provincial People's Congress, for bribery and embezzlement, resulting in a life sentence and confiscation of all personal assets [1][3]. Summary by Sections Case Overview - Li Xiangang was sentenced to life imprisonment for bribery and four years for embezzlement, with a total of 1.17 billion RMB in bribes received from 2006 to 2024 [3]. - The court found that Li used his official positions to facilitate illegal benefits for individuals and entities, leading to significant losses for the state and the public [3]. Details of Crimes - Li's embezzlement involved high-priced sales and low-priced purchases of properties, amounting to over 1.68 million RMB [3]. - The court acknowledged Li's cooperation during the investigation, including confessing to crimes and returning embezzled funds, which contributed to a lighter sentence [3]. Background Information - Li Xiangang, born in February 1963, held various significant positions in Heilongjiang, including mayor and secretary of the municipal party committee of Shuangyashan, and was deputy director of the Heilongjiang Provincial People's Congress from January 2018 [6]. - He was placed under investigation in March 2024 and expelled from the party in September 2024 due to moral corruption and misuse of power for personal gain [6].

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the legal implications of a village official's abuse of power in the context of public property and compensation, highlighting differing opinions on whether the actions constitute a crime under the law [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three opinions regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Chen and Pan are co-conspirators in embezzlement due to Chen's facilitation of Pan's fraudulent claims [2]. 2. Pan committed fraud independently, while Chen's actions, though improper, do not constitute complicity in fraud due to lack of intent to illegally possess public property [2]. 3. Chen, while assisting the government, can be considered a public official and his actions amount to abuse of power, leading to significant losses for the state [2][3]. Group 2: Definition of Public Officials - Village officials can be recognized as public officials when assisting government functions, as per legal interpretations that include those acting on behalf of state agencies [3][4]. - The case illustrates that Chen, as a village party secretary and committee director, was acting under government delegation, thus qualifying as a public official [4]. Group 3: Subjective Intent and Actions - Chen lacked the intent to illegally possess public property, as his actions were driven by personal relationships rather than a desire for personal gain [5][6]. - The absence of a conspiracy to embezzle public funds between Chen and Pan indicates that Chen's actions were not criminally conspiratorial [5][6]. Group 4: Objective Consequences of Actions - Chen's failure to properly audit compensation claims led to significant financial losses for the state, amounting to over 4 million yuan in fraudulent compensation [1][6]. - The abuse of power manifested through Chen's negligence in fulfilling his duties, resulting in substantial harm to public interests [6].

Core Points - The prosecution has filed charges against four individuals for corruption-related offenses, highlighting ongoing efforts to combat corruption within government ranks [1][2][3][4][5]. Group 1: Individuals Charged - Huang Weidong, former secretary of the Party Working Committee and director of the management committee of the Hefei New Station High-tech Industrial Development Zone, is accused of accepting bribes while holding various official positions [2]. - Xin Weiping, former director of the Police Logistics Department of Jiangxi Provincial Public Security Department, faces charges of bribery and embezzlement, utilizing his official capacity to gain illegal benefits [3]. - Yang Yizhong, former deputy director of the Standing Committee of the Hunan Provincial People's Congress, is charged with bribery and dereliction of duty, allegedly causing significant losses to state and public interests [4]. - Dai Zhongya, former deputy secretary of the Party Working Committee and director of the management committee of the Ningxiang Economic and Technological Development Zone, is accused of accepting bribes through his official position [5]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The cases have been transferred from the respective provincial supervisory commissions to local people's procuratorates for prosecution, indicating a structured legal process in handling corruption cases [2][3][4][5]. - Each accused individual has been informed of their legal rights during the prosecution phase, and their defense opinions have been considered [2][3][4][5].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves Chen, who misappropriated employee education subsidies from a state-owned company, leading to a debate on the legal classification of his actions, with a consensus leaning towards the charge of embezzlement of state assets [2][6]. Group 1: Misappropriation of Funds - Chen, as the party branch secretary and responsible person of the company, conspired with others to fraudulently obtain over 350,000 yuan in employee education subsidies by falsifying invoices and documents [1][6]. - The funds were then distributed to employees under the guise of subsidies, with Chen personally receiving 40,000 yuan from this scheme [1][6]. Group 2: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three differing opinions on how to classify Chen's actions: one suggests it was a violation of regulations regarding subsidy distribution, another views it as embezzlement, while the third, which is favored, classifies it as the crime of misappropriating state assets [2][3]. - The argument against classifying the actions as a violation of subsidy distribution is based on the nature of the fraud, which involved deceitful acquisition rather than merely improper distribution [3][4]. Group 3: Implications of Misappropriation - The actions taken by Chen and his associates are deemed to constitute the crime of misappropriating state assets, as they violated national regulations and involved significant amounts of money [6]. - The case meets the criteria for prosecution under the law, given the amount involved exceeds the threshold for serious offenses against state assets [6].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Li, a member of the village committee, highlights the misuse of public funds and the legal implications of such actions, specifically regarding the classification of his crimes as embezzlement and misappropriation of public property [3][11][14]. Group 1: Case Background - Li joined the Communist Party in November 2015 and served as a member and accountant of the village committee from 2016 to 2023 [3]. - In 2016, the government approved the expropriation of collective land in C Village, resulting in a compensation payment of 1.4 million yuan being deposited into the village's account [3][10]. - Li misappropriated the 1.4 million yuan compensation during his management of the funds, which were intended for distribution to villagers [10][14]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Li voluntarily surrendered to authorities on May 10, 2023, leading to an investigation and subsequent disciplinary actions [4][5]. - On August 23, 2023, he was expelled from the Party and the case was transferred to the local prosecutor's office for further legal action [5]. - The prosecution formally charged Li with embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, resulting in a combined sentence of 19 years in prison and fines totaling 4.8 million yuan [6][14]. Group 3: Legal Classification of Crimes - Li's actions were classified as embezzlement due to his role as a village committee member, which allowed him to manage public funds [11][14]. - The nature of the 1.4 million yuan compensation was determined to be public property, as it was government funds intended for public benefit, thus qualifying Li's actions as embezzlement [13][14]. - In contrast, Li's misappropriation of 19.61 million yuan from village collective funds was classified as misappropriation due to the funds being considered as belonging to the village collective rather than public property [15][17].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves Zhang, a former sales director at A Company, who exploited his position to illegally profit from transactions involving PAC, leading to potential charges of embezzlement and corruption based on his changing status from a company employee to a state worker [2][5][10]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - A Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of state-owned B Company, engaged in the production and sale of PAC. Zhang, hired in 2012, manipulated sales contracts to benefit a shell company, C Company, resulting in a profit of 1.8 million yuan, of which he received 1.4 million yuan [2][3]. Disputed Opinions - Three differing opinions exist regarding the classification of Zhang's actions: 1. Zhang's actions before February 2017 constitute embezzlement, while actions after that date are classified as corruption, leading to dual charges [5]. 2. Zhang's continuous actions should be viewed as a single offense of corruption due to his final status as a state worker, totaling 6.7 million yuan in illicit gains [6]. 3. Zhang's actions before and after his status change should be classified separately, with embezzlement for earlier actions and corruption for later ones, resulting in a total of 3.2 million yuan for embezzlement and 3.5 million yuan for corruption [7]. Legal Analysis - The distinction between company employees and state workers is crucial in determining the nature of the crimes. Embezzlement applies to company employees, while corruption applies to state workers [9][10]. - Zhang's actions involved artificially inflating transaction processes to siphon profits from A Company, which constitutes illegal appropriation of company assets [12][13]. Calculation of Criminal Amounts - Zhang and Li, as co-conspirators, are liable for both embezzlement and corruption, with the total amounts for each crime being 3.2 million yuan and 3.5 million yuan, respectively [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the misuse of public funds by a former court official, highlighting issues of corruption and the establishment of an unauthorized "small treasury" for personal gain [3][9][10]. Summary by Relevant Sections Basic Case Facts - The individual in question, referred to as Xiang, misappropriated a total of 356.9 million yuan in execution guarantee funds and judicial relief funds from 2007 to 2012, using them for daily expenses of the court [3][9]. - Over the years, Xiang and accomplices embezzled over 354 million yuan and misappropriated 60 million yuan for personal investments, including stock trading and real estate [3][4]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in September 2020, leading to Xiang's expulsion from the party and public office by August 2021 [4]. - The case was transferred to the C District People's Procuratorate for prosecution, resulting in a ten-year prison sentence for Xiang in March 2023, along with fines totaling 655,000 yuan [4][5]. Nature of the "Small Treasury" - The "small treasury" was established by Xiang and involved the unauthorized management of public funds, which were supposed to be deposited in a designated court account [7][9]. - The establishment of such a treasury is classified as a violation of financial discipline, particularly as it occurred before the 2016 regulatory changes [8][9]. Classification of Crimes - The actions of Xiang and his accomplices were classified as embezzlement rather than the misappropriation of state assets, as the funds were considered public property [10][12]. - The court determined that the funds in the "small treasury" were public assets, and the actions constituted a collective crime of embezzlement [11][12]. Misappropriation of Funds for Personal Use - Xiang directed the transfer of 350,000 yuan from the "small treasury" to his personal account for stock trading, which was classified as misappropriation of public funds [13][14]. - The court ruled that this act constituted a completed crime of misappropriation, despite the subsequent return of the funds [14]. Transition from Misappropriation to Embezzlement - In a specific instance, Xiang misappropriated 300,000 yuan in execution guarantee funds, which transitioned from misappropriation to embezzlement when he conspired to illegally retain the funds [15][18]. - The court found that Xiang's actions demonstrated a clear intent to illegally possess public funds, leading to a classification of his actions as embezzlement [17][18].