Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the complexities of defining the nature of "intermediary" behavior in bribery cases, particularly focusing on a specific case involving a vice district chief and an intermediary who facilitated bribery for a construction project [1][2]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves Li, a vice district chief, and Ou, an employee of a company, who conspired to facilitate a construction project for Liu, the actual controller of a construction company, in exchange for a bribe [1]. - Liu approached Ou to help secure a project, leading to an agreement where Li would receive a portion of the bribe, initially set at 120 million yuan but later increased to 150 million yuan [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Opinions on Bribery - There are two main opinions regarding the nature of the actions of Li and Ou: one suggests they should be jointly liable for the full bribe amount of 150 million yuan, while the other argues for a recognition of only 120 million yuan based on their initial agreement [2][3]. - The second opinion is favored, asserting that Ou's additional request for 30 million yuan was outside of Li's knowledge and intent, thus should not be included in the joint bribery amount [2][5]. Group 3: Role of Intermediaries - The article highlights the role of intermediaries in facilitating bribery, noting that their involvement can complicate the assessment of joint liability and the actual amounts involved [3][4]. - It emphasizes that intermediaries often have varying degrees of involvement, from merely relaying messages to actively participating in the collection and distribution of bribes [3][6]. Group 4: Determining Bribery Amounts - The determination of the bribery amount in cases involving intermediaries is complex, as the actual amounts exchanged may differ from the agreed-upon figures due to the intermediary's actions [4][5]. - The principle of subjective-objective consistency is discussed, indicating that if an intermediary does not inform the public official about additional amounts collected, the official's liability should be limited to the originally agreed sum [5][6].