中央纪委国家监委网站 方弈霏 特邀嘉宾 刘严泽 重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委第五纪检监察室主任 李某某，曾任A市B公司（系A市C区人民政府国有资产监督管理委员会出资成立的国有独资公司）党委书 记、董事长等职。 胡 磊 重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委案件审理室主任 甘永霞 重庆市沙坪坝区人民检察院检察二部副主任 王志锋 重庆市沙坪坝区人民法院刑事审判庭副庭长 编者按 本案中，李某某利用职务便利，安排下属帮助其胞妹李某与他人合伙承揽其所在国企下属单位的工程项目， 李某实际投资经营后获利125万元，李某某的行为如何定性？经李某转达请托，李某某帮助刘某承揽工程项 目，且明知李某在不实际出资以及参与经营管理情况下获得刘某给予的"利润分红"，李某某此行为应如何定 性？李某在李某某帮助下与他人合伙承揽工程项目，真实出资并参与经营，但多获"分红"327万元，是否应计 入李某某的受贿数额？我们特邀相关单位工作人员予以解析。 图为重庆市沙坪坝区纪委监委工作人员进行研讨。谢静逸 摄 基本案情： 违反廉洁纪律。2020年至2022年，李某某利用担任B公司党委书记、董事长的职务便利，安排下属帮助其胞 妹李某与他人合伙承接了B公司下属全资子公司D公司 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of new forms of corruption, particularly focusing on the case of a public official who facilitated a consulting company to disguise illicit financial transactions under the guise of legitimate consulting services [1][5]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Li, a director at the A Province Market Supervision Administration, helped his associate Wang establish a consulting company to improve Wang's financial situation [2]. - Wang's company, B, was set up to provide consulting services related to standardization, but it lacked the necessary expertise and resources [3]. Nature of Services Provided - B Company did not deliver genuine consulting services as per the contracts signed with project applicants, leading to additional costs for those applicants to seek real consulting services elsewhere [3][11]. - The services provided were superficial and did not meet the standards of legitimate consulting practices, indicating that B Company was essentially a "shell company" [10][12]. Legal Opinions and Analysis - There are differing opinions on whether Li and Wang's actions constitute legitimate business operations or corruption. The second opinion, which is favored, argues that their actions were a coordinated effort to disguise bribery under the pretense of consulting services [5][6]. - The establishment of B Company was primarily for the purpose of facilitating bribery, as evidenced by the lack of genuine business operations and the nature of the services provided [9][10]. Criminal Implications - Li and Wang's actions are classified as joint bribery, as they conspired to use the consulting company as a front for receiving illicit payments [13][14]. - The total amount received by Wang, approximately 9 million yuan, is considered to be part of the bribery scheme, with Li having a general awareness of the financial transactions involved [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the complexities of defining the legal status of specific relations involved in bribery, particularly focusing on the actions of Wang and Chen in the context of bribery and potential money laundering [1][2][3][4][5] Group 1: Bribery and Legal Implications - Chen's actions clearly constitute bribery as he used his official position to assist Company B in securing a project, subsequently facilitating the transfer of benefits to Wang, who is his son-in-law [2][5] - There are differing opinions on Wang's legal culpability; one view suggests he does not meet the criteria for joint bribery due to lack of direct involvement in the initial bribery scheme, while another view argues that he acted in concert with Chen, thus constituting joint bribery [2][5] Group 2: Money Laundering Considerations - Wang's actions do not align with the criteria for money laundering, as his intent was not merely to conceal the source of illicit funds but to actively participate in the receipt and management of the bribe [3][4] - The involvement of Wang was crucial in completing Chen's bribery act, indicating that his actions were part of the bribery rather than a separate money laundering offense [4][5] Group 3: Conspiracy and Collaboration - The concept of "conspiracy" in this context can occur either before or during the bribery act; Wang's knowledge of the bribe's nature and his actions to facilitate it suggest a collaborative effort with Chen [5] - Wang's engagement in signing false contracts and investment agreements under Chen's direction indicates a clear understanding of the bribery scheme, thus supporting the argument for joint bribery [5]

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].