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]

【内容提要】 实践中，有的国家工作人员利用职务便利，让本单位虚增交易环节，使得第三人获利，由于国家工作人 员实施行为的主观动机不同、虚增交易获利的对象不同，行为性质认定也存在不同，笔者结合案例进行 分析。 【基本案情】 案例一：甲，国有A公司总经理；乙，甲的特定关系人。2022年3月，A公司拟采购一套特种设备，经过 前期工作，A公司已经与设备供应商B公司建立联系，双方经过谈判，初步达成以1000万元市场价采购 设备的意向。为了帮乙获取利益，甲在明知上述情况下，仍以本单位"对特种设备行业不了解、容易高 价采购产品"为由，指使A公司与乙签订委托采购协议，约定由乙帮助A公司开展"市场调研、比价谈 判"等业务，并按照采购额10%的标准收取"委托费"。后A公司以1000万元价格从B公司采购该设备，并 支付乙100万元"委托费"。2024年1月，甲案发，经查，乙只是在B公司的帮助下，向A公司出具了一份 市场调研报告，没有实施其他任何行为，该100万元被乙用于个人开支。 【意见分析】 案例一和案例二中，笔者均同意第二种意见。 国家工作人员出于某种动机，在明知没有必要的情况下，仍利用职权，指使单位虚增交易环节，本质属 于套取 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the misappropriation of customer funds by a bank official, leading to a debate on whether the actions constitute the crime of embezzlement, misappropriation of public funds, or the crime of accepting customer funds without proper accounting [1][3][4]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Liu, a deputy branch manager of a state-owned commercial bank, and his wife, the actual controller of a private company, misappropriated over 10 million yuan from customers by falsely claiming high-interest deposit opportunities [2]. - Liu did not deposit the funds into the bank's official accounts but used them for his wife's company's operations, leading to a financial crisis and inability to repay the funds [2]. Divergent Opinions - Three opinions exist regarding Liu's actions: 1. Some argue he committed the crime of accepting customer funds without proper accounting due to the significant amount involved [3]. 2. Others believe he committed misappropriation of public funds since he intended to use the funds for business operations and misled customers into thinking their money was safely deposited [3]. 3. The third opinion asserts that Liu's actions constitute embezzlement, as he intended to illegally possess the funds after failing to repay them [4]. Analysis of Opinions - The analysis supports the view that Liu's actions should be classified as embezzlement, focusing on the nature of the funds, the intent to illegally possess them, and the transformation of intent from misappropriation to embezzlement [5][10][14]. - The funds involved are considered public funds, as they were not deposited into the bank's official accounts, despite customers believing they were [8][9]. Judgment of Intent - The determination of Liu's intent is crucial, as embezzlement requires a clear intention to illegally possess public funds, which is evident in Liu's actions of destroying deposit certificates and fleeing [10][12][13]. - Liu's behavior reflects a shift from initially misappropriating funds for business purposes to a clear intent to permanently deprive customers of their money [13][14]. Conclusion - Based on the principles of subjective and objective consistency, Liu's actions should be treated as embezzlement, as they represent a complete criminal act involving the misappropriation and subsequent illegal possession of public funds [14].

Core Points - The case involves Lin, a former official, who used his position to facilitate his wife's early retirement and pension collection through fraudulent means [2][5][15] - Lin's actions have been classified as embezzlement and bribery, leading to his conviction and sentencing [8][12][18] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Lin held multiple positions in B County, including Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Bureau and Chairman of the Agricultural Development Company [3] - He engaged in a loan transaction with a contractor, resulting in a profit of 38.78 million yuan [3][4] Violations of Financial Laws - Lin was involved in creating a "slush fund" by fabricating labor contracts to siphon off 196,300 yuan [4][14] - He misappropriated funds for unauthorized employee bonuses and reimbursements [4][14] Embezzlement and Bribery - Lin's wife, Tao, sought to retire early by falsely claiming employment with the Agricultural Development Company, which Lin facilitated [5][15] - The company paid a total of 7,649.76 yuan for Tao's insurance, which was included in Lin's embezzlement total [6][18][20] - Lin received bribes totaling 1.245 million yuan from contractors during his tenure [6][8] Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in March 2023, leading to Lin's detention and subsequent expulsion from the party and public office [7][8] - Lin was formally charged with embezzlement and bribery, resulting in a four-year prison sentence and a fine of 400,000 yuan [8][12] Legal Analysis - The classification of Lin's loan to the contractor as either a legitimate transaction or a form of bribery was debated, with the conclusion leaning towards it being a violation of ethical standards rather than outright bribery [10][12] - The fraudulent creation of labor contracts was analyzed under the lens of embezzlement, with Lin's intent to misappropriate public funds being a key factor [15][16][18]

Core Viewpoint - The case involves范某某, who utilized his position to engage in bribery and embezzlement, resulting in significant financial gains for himself and others involved in the scheme [3][4][7]. Group 1: Bribery Details - From 2009 to 2024,范某某 received over 2.47 million yuan in bribes from company representatives, leveraging his official capacity to benefit them in securing municipal projects [3][4]. -范某某 and other officials conspired to receive over 1 million yuan in cash under the guise of "overtime pay" and "performance bonuses," with范某某 personally obtaining 270,000 yuan [3][8]. - The funds received were not for the benefit of the public institution but were distributed among the conspirators, indicating a clear intent to profit personally [9][10]. Group 2: Embezzlement Activities -范某某 engaged in embezzlement by misappropriating public funds, including 250,000 yuan through unauthorized use of hotel accounts and restaurant cards [4][16]. - He manipulated project funds, directing 90,000 yuan to a hotel account for personal use, with only a portion being used for legitimate business expenses [5][17]. - The embezzlement was characterized by a deliberate concealment of funds, indicating a clear intent to misappropriate public resources for personal gain [16][18]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - The investigation into范某某 began on May 13, 2024, leading to his detention and subsequent legal actions, including expulsion from the party and prosecution for bribery and embezzlement [6][7]. - On March 7, 2025, the court sentenced范某某 to a total of seven years in prison and imposed fines totaling 600,000 yuan for his crimes [7][8]. - The legal proceedings highlighted the distinction between bribery and embezzlement, with the court recognizing范某某's actions as primarily embezzlement due to the nature of the funds involved [16][17].