Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misuse of public funds by officials, specifically focusing on a case where a street committee leader facilitated the borrowing of public funds for personal connections, highlighting the legal implications of such actions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Summary - Zhao, a party committee secretary, borrowed 5 million yuan from public funds for a friend, Li, who was in financial trouble, and received 200,000 yuan in cash as a thank-you [2]. - Zhao manipulated the decision-making process by ensuring that other committee members would not oppose the borrowing during a collective meeting, which ultimately led to the approval of the loan [2][5]. - The loan agreement stipulated a one-year term with an 8% annual interest rate, and the funds were transferred to Li's personal account [2]. Group 2: Legal Perspectives - There are two main legal interpretations regarding Zhao's actions: one views it as bribery, while the other sees it as both bribery and embezzlement of public funds [3][7]. - The second viewpoint argues that despite the appearance of collective decision-making, Zhao's actions were primarily driven by personal intent, constituting embezzlement of public funds [3][5]. - Zhao's actions meet the criteria for embezzlement as defined by law, as he knowingly misused public funds for personal benefit, disregarding the risks involved [4][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - According to Article 384 of the Criminal Law, embezzlement occurs when public funds are misused for personal gain, especially when the amount is significant or not repaid within three months [4]. - The interpretation of the law clarifies that actions taken under the guise of collective decision-making can still be classified as embezzlement if they serve personal interests [4][5]. - Zhao's case exemplifies the legal principle that even if a decision appears collective, if it is driven by individual intent for personal gain, it constitutes embezzlement [5][6].

中央纪委国家监委网站 程威 特邀嘉宾 张皓宇 重庆市荣昌区纪委常委 杨一龙 中国农业银行重庆开州支行党委委员、纪委书记 龙琎琎 重庆市铜梁区人民检察院四级高级检察官 杨 建 重庆市铜梁区人民法院四级高级法官 编者按 本案中，甲多次以民间借贷名义收取"利息"，为何有的认定为违纪，有的认定构成受贿犯罪？有观点认 为，甲审核同意发放贷款3670万元仅仅是发放贷款的一个环节，因此不构成违法发放贷款罪，如何看待 该观点？对甲收受贿赂并违法发放贷款的行为，是应择一重罪处罚，还是按受贿罪和违法发放贷款罪数 罪并罚？我们特邀相关单位工作人员予以解析。 基本案情： 甲，曾任某国有商业银行A市B区支行党委委员、副行长，A市C区支行党委委员、副行长，A市D区支 行党委委员等职务。 违反廉洁纪律。2017年11月至2019年1月，甲在担任A市C区支行党委委员、副行长期间，筹集100万元 出借给A市某林业发展公司（该公司为A市C区支行信贷客户，在此期间，该公司存在资金需求，同期 向其他民事主体有多笔借款，且多笔借款所支付的月利率大于或等于3%），并按3%的月利率收取利 息。2019年1月，甲收回本金100万元，累计收取利息45万余元。 ...

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the interpretation of "receiving property from others" in the context of bribery, where a public official can be deemed to have received benefits even if they do not directly possess the property [1] - The case involves Chen, a public official, who facilitated the purchase of commercial properties at significantly lower prices than market value, which raises questions about the legality of his actions [2][5] - Chen's actions are classified as a form of bribery under the law, particularly due to the substantial discounts he and his relative received, which were below market prices by 1.03 million and 1.5 million respectively [5][6] Group 2 - There are differing opinions on whether Chen's assistance to his relative in obtaining a low-priced property constitutes bribery or merely a violation of disciplinary regulations [2][3] - The prevailing view is that Chen's actions should be classified as bribery since the benefits received by his relative were a direct result of Chen's abuse of power [3][4] - The legal framework indicates that public officials who use their authority to benefit others, even indirectly, can be prosecuted for bribery, emphasizing the importance of maintaining integrity in public service [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around a government official, referred to as "甲", who engaged in lending practices to local businessmen under the guise of high-interest loans, which are being scrutinized for potential bribery rather than legitimate private lending [2][10][19]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - "甲" served as the head of the Environmental Protection Bureau and later as the director of the Science and Technology Committee in a district, during which he received a total of 30 million yuan in bribes and 2.35 million yuan through high-interest loans from local businessmen [3][4][5]. Investigation Process - The investigation began on April 24, 2023, leading to "甲" being placed under detention on May 15, 2023, followed by expulsion from the party and public office on July 27, 2023 [6][7][8]. Legal Proceedings - On August 31, 2023, the district's People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against "甲" for bribery, resulting in a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence and a fine of 300,000 yuan on September 14, 2023 [9]. Analysis of Lending Practices - "甲" utilized his official position to lend money to businessmen who had no real need for loans, thereby coercing them into accepting high-interest terms due to his influence over their business operations [10][12][19]. - The lending practices were characterized by a lack of genuine borrower needs, with "甲" selecting financially stable businessmen to maximize his returns without facing market risks [12][13][19]. Nature of the Offense - The distinction between "甲's" actions and legitimate private lending is emphasized, as the relationships involved were not equal, but rather hierarchical, with "甲" exerting control over the businessmen [12][19]. - The legal interpretation of "甲's" actions suggests that they constitute bribery rather than mere disciplinary violations, as he leveraged his official capacity to extract financial benefits from those he managed [15][16][19]. Criminal Amount Assessment - The total amount involved in "甲's" bribery is assessed at 2.77 million yuan, with 2.35 million yuan classified as completed bribery and 420,000 yuan as attempted bribery due to the investigation halting further collection [20][21].