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 article discusses the interpretation of the scope of supervisory objects under the Supervision Law, particularly focusing on whether certain management personnel in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should be considered as supervisory objects based on their appointment processes and the nature of their roles [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Definitions - The Supervision Law specifies that supervisory objects include "management personnel of state-owned enterprises" [1]. - The implementation regulations clarify that management personnel in state-owned enterprises are those who perform organizational, leadership, management, and supervisory duties, either in wholly state-owned enterprises or in state-controlled enterprises [3][4]. - There are two categories of supervisory objects: those in wholly state-owned enterprises and those in state-controlled or joint-stock enterprises, with distinctions based on the nature of the enterprise [3][4]. Group 2: Case Analysis - In the case of Company A, which is 51% state-owned, the company’s party branch has decision-making authority over significant matters, including personnel appointments [2][6]. - There are differing opinions on whether the appointed procurement manager, Huang, qualifies as a supervisory object; one view argues he does not due to the lack of formal appointment by a state body, while the other view supports his classification based on the party branch's authority [2][6]. - The article supports the view that Huang should be considered a supervisory object due to the party branch's decision-making role and the nature of his appointment [2][6][7]. Group 3: Implications of the Case - Huang's actions, which involved using his position to benefit a private individual and accepting bribes, constitute a violation of the law, confirming his status as a state worker under the relevant legal framework [7]. - The case highlights the complexities in determining the supervisory status of personnel in state-controlled enterprises, particularly regarding the authority of party branches in such organizations [6][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].

Core Viewpoint - The case illustrates the complexities of identifying bribery in situations where public officials use third-party accounts for personal gain, highlighting the need for precise legal interpretation of such actions [1][3][5]. Group 1: Case Background - The case involves a public official (甲) and a private company owner (乙), where the official used the company's funds for stock trading under a pre-agreed arrangement that profits would go to the official while losses would be borne by the company [2][4]. - In 2019, the official provided assistance to the company in land transfer matters, leading to a financial arrangement where the company funded the official's stock trading activities [2][5]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - There are differing opinions on whether the actions constitute bribery, with one view suggesting it was a legitimate private investment agreement, while the other argues it was a clear case of bribery due to the unequal risk-sharing arrangement [3][4]. - The second viewpoint posits that the official's acceptance of the arrangement, which exempted him from losses, constitutes receiving bribes, as the financial loss of 400,000 yuan effectively served as a kickback for the official's prior assistance [5][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - The legal framework indicates that for a contract to be valid, it must reflect genuine intent, which is questioned in this case due to the nature of the agreement between the public official and the private entity [4][5]. - The actions of the official are seen as violating the integrity expected of public servants, as they exploited their position for personal financial gain, thus constituting a breach of duty [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves a public official and a private company owner colluding to force businesses to pay for a service that should be free, leading to charges of bribery, money laundering, and abuse of power [2][5][15]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - The public official, identified as the head of A Maritime Bureau, sought to have a private company, controlled by a close associate, handle a new port's electronic data interchange (EDI) declaration services, which are typically free [2][3]. Actions Taken - The official organized a meeting to designate the private company as the EDI agent and pressured other businesses to pay for this service, threatening to deny their EDI applications if they did not comply [3][9]. Financial Transactions - From December 2021 to March 2024, the private company collected over 4.9 million yuan in fees, with the official receiving over 2 million yuan in kickbacks, which were then laundered through various financial maneuvers [3][10]. Divergent Opinions on Legal Classification - Three opinions emerged regarding the classification of the actions: 1. The first opinion suggests the actions constitute forced trading [5]. 2. The second opinion argues for classification as bribery, emphasizing the coercive nature of the actions [6]. 3. The third opinion supports the second but also includes money laundering due to the subsequent financial transactions aimed at concealing the source of the funds [6][11]. Legal Analysis - The actions of the public official and the private company owner are seen as a clear case of bribery, as they exploited the official's position to extract payments for a service that should be free [8][10]. - The laundering of the proceeds through investments and fictitious loan agreements indicates a deliberate attempt to obscure the origins of the illicit funds, fulfilling the criteria for money laundering [11][14]. Abuse of Power - The public official's actions not only violated legal standards but also severely damaged the reputation of the public institution, leading to widespread complaints and media coverage, which constitutes abuse of power [15][16].

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 Points - The Chinese judicial system has initiated prosecutions against three individuals for corruption-related charges, highlighting ongoing efforts to combat corruption within government and educational institutions [1] Group 1: Prosecution of Chen Ligen - Chen Ligen, former Party Secretary of Nanjing Agricultural University, is accused of accepting bribes while leveraging his official positions to benefit certain entities in project contracts, admissions, and title evaluations, with the amount being particularly large [2] - The case has been transferred from the Jiangsu Provincial Supervisory Committee to the Nanjing Municipal People's Procuratorate for prosecution [2] Group 2: Prosecution of Zhang Gaoshe - Zhang Gaoshe, former Deputy Director of the Qinghai Provincial Justice Department, faces charges of bribery and using his influence to accept bribes, with allegations of leveraging his official roles to gain benefits for others [3] - The case has been forwarded from the Qinghai Provincial Supervisory Committee to the Xining Municipal People's Procuratorate for legal proceedings [3] Group 3: Prosecution of Xu Yucai - Xu Yucai, former Level 1 Inspector of the Yunnan Provincial Administration of Government Affairs, is charged with accepting bribes while using his various official positions to provide benefits to others [4] - The case has been designated for prosecution by the Pu'er Municipal People's Procuratorate after being investigated by the Yunnan Provincial Supervisory Committee [4]

涉嫌受贿罪 甘肃省原副省长赵金云被逮捕 智通财经5月9日电，从最高人民检察院获悉，甘肃省政府原副省长赵金云涉嫌受贿一案，由国家监察委 员会调查终结，移送检察机关审查起诉。日前，最高人民检察院依法以涉嫌受贿罪对赵金云作出逮捕决 定。该案正在进一步办理中。 ...

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。 ...