中央纪委国家监委网站 方弈霏 受贿罪。2012年至2023年，李某某利用职务上的便利，为他人或单位在工程项目承揽等事项上谋取利益，非法收受财物折合共计1649万余元。 图为广西壮族自治区桂林市纪委监委工作人员围绕案情进行研讨。朱东华 摄 编者按 实践中，一些党员干部让请托人出资，并以"隐名持股"等形式经商办企业，其中既有违反廉洁纪律行为，又暗藏权钱交易，违纪与违法犯罪行为交织，需透 过表象把握本质，厘清纪法罪界限，依规依纪依法精准定性。本期案例中，李某某要求请托人出资120万元帮助其入股某企业，应如何认定受贿犯罪对象？ 李某某用所收好处费经商办企业怎样定性？李某某的近亲属向其转达他人请托并收受财物，李某某对此知情并默许，二人是否构成共同受贿？我们特邀相关 单位工作人员予以解析。 石文军 广西壮族自治区桂林市象山区人民法院副院长 特邀嘉宾 基本案情： 莫军飞 广西壮族自治区桂林市纪委监委第四监督检查室主任 李某某，1987年11月加入中国共产党。曾任A市某股份有限公司（国有独资公司）党委副书记、副董事长，党委书记、董事长，A市某集团有限公司（国有 独资公司）党委书记、董事长，A市某投资公司（国有独资公司）党委书 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involves former government official Wang, who engaged in corrupt practices by leveraging his influence to benefit a private company, A Company, through collusion with current employees of a state-owned enterprise, leading to significant financial gains from bribery [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Overview - Wang served as the Deputy Director of a state-owned assets supervision commission from August 2015 to December 2018 and retired in January 2019 [1]. - In October 2020, Wang accepted a request from Zhang, the legal representative of A Company, to assist in securing a contract with a state-owned company, B Company [1]. - Wang received a total of 1.8 million yuan in bribes from Zhang, of which he retained 300,000 yuan and distributed the remaining 1.5 million yuan equally among himself and two accomplices, Li and Wu [1][6]. Group 2: Legal Opinions - There are two differing legal opinions regarding the classification of Wang, Li, and Wu's actions [2]. - The first opinion suggests that Wang should be charged with multiple offenses, including utilizing influence for bribery, while Li and Wu should be charged with receiving bribes, each amounting to 500,000 yuan [3]. - The second opinion posits that all three should be considered co-conspirators in bribery, with a total of 1.5 million yuan recognized as the joint crime amount, while Wang's retention of 300,000 yuan constitutes a separate offense of utilizing influence for bribery [3][4]. Group 3: Criminal Responsibility - Wang, Li, and Wu are deemed to have committed joint bribery, with Li recognized as a state worker and Wu as a non-state worker, complicating the classification of their roles [4][5]. - The legal framework indicates that when non-state and state workers collude in bribery, they should be prosecuted as co-conspirators, especially when their actions are interdependent [5][6]. - The total amount of joint bribery is established at 1.5 million yuan, as Wang's personal retention of 300,000 yuan is not included in the shared crime amount due to Li and Wu's lack of knowledge about it [6][7].

Core Points - The Supreme People's Procuratorate announced the prosecution of several former officials for bribery and abuse of power, highlighting ongoing anti-corruption efforts in China [1][3][4][5] Group 1: Prosecutions - Former officials from various regions, including Ningxia, Shanxi, and Hunan, have been prosecuted for serious corruption charges, including bribery and utilizing influence for personal gain [1][3][4][5] - Specific cases include: - She Jinjun, former inspector of the Ningxia Forestry Department, accused of accepting bribes and using his influence to gain illegal benefits [2] - Wang Baoyu, former vice president of Jin Coal Group and chairman of Shanxi Blue Flame Holdings, charged with accepting bribes related to job adjustments and project contracts [3] - Duan Zhigang, former deputy director of the Hunan Provincial People's Congress, accused of using his position to illegally accept significant amounts of money [4] - Tang Xiangyang, former vice mayor and police chief of Changsha, also charged with accepting bribes while in office [5] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The cases have been transferred to local courts for further proceedings, indicating a structured legal process following the investigations by provincial supervisory committees [2][3][4][5] - Each accused individual has been informed of their legal rights and has had the opportunity to respond to the charges during the prosecution phase [2][3][4][5]

Core Points - The news reports on the prosecution of four individuals for corruption-related charges in China, highlighting the ongoing anti-corruption efforts by the government [1][2][3][4][5] Group 1: Prosecution Details - She Jinjun, former inspector of the Ningxia Forestry Department, is accused of bribery and using influence to accept bribes, with the case being handled by the People's Procuratorate of Guyuan City [2] - Wang Baoyu, former deputy general manager of Jincheng Coal Group and chairman of Shanxi Blue Flame Holdings, is charged with bribery, leveraging his positions to gain illegal benefits [3] - Duan Zhigang, former deputy director of the Hunan Provincial People's Congress, faces charges of bribery for using his official capacity to accept bribes [4] - Tang Xiangyang, former deputy mayor of Changsha and former director of the Public Security Bureau, is also charged with bribery, utilizing his position to gain illegal financial benefits [5]

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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the case of Xu, a former official in the health sector, who is accused of violating organizational discipline and engaging in bribery during her tenure, highlighting the dual responsibilities of disciplinary and legal oversight in such cases [1][2][3]. Summary by Relevant Sections Basic Case Facts - Xu, a member of the Communist Party since June 1987, held various positions including Secretary and Director of the B City Health Commission until her retirement in December 2023 [2]. - From 2013 to 2022, Xu violated organizational discipline by intervening in the hiring and job adjustments of several officials, receiving a total of 37 million yuan in bribes [2][6]. Bribery Charges - Between 2013 and 2022, Xu utilized her position to gain improper benefits for others in areas such as medical equipment procurement and project contracting, receiving a total of 1.07 million yuan in cash, with 300,000 yuan being an attempted bribe [3][8]. Investigation Process - The investigation began on January 10, 2024, leading to Xu's detention and subsequent disciplinary actions, including expulsion from the Party and cancellation of retirement benefits [4][5]. Legal Proceedings - On August 9, 2024, the C District People's Procuratorate formally charged Xu with bribery, resulting in a conviction and a sentence of three years and four months in prison, along with a fine of 300,000 yuan [5]. Disciplinary Violations - Xu's actions in facilitating personnel benefits for others while receiving bribes were classified as violations of organizational discipline, warranting disciplinary measures in addition to legal consequences [6][8]. Family Influence and Responsibility - Xu's son, utilizing her position, sought benefits for others, but Xu was not found to have direct knowledge of his actions, leading to a conclusion that she violated disciplinary regulations rather than being complicit in bribery [9][12]. Bribery Without Actual Receipt - The case also discusses the implications of Xu agreeing to receive a bribe of 300,000 yuan but not actually obtaining it, which was classified as attempted bribery under the law [13][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the procedures and opinions regarding the handling of "self-laundering" issues discovered during the investigation of职务犯罪 (职务犯罪) cases by supervisory and prosecutorial authorities, emphasizing the need for coordination between these entities in both the investigation and prosecution phases [1][5]. Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1 involves Zhang, who accepted bribes totaling 10 million yuan and subsequently laundered the money through multiple bank transfers and property purchases [2]. - Case 2 involves Liu, who accepted 3 million yuan in bribes and laundered part of it through transfers to family members' accounts and then to an overseas account, amounting to 1 million yuan [2]. Group 2: Divergent Opinions - The first opinion suggests that evidence collected during the investigation can be shared to save resources, allowing for simultaneous prosecution of both bribery and money laundering [3]. - The second opinion argues that since money laundering falls under police jurisdiction, evidence should be transferred to the police for further investigation before prosecution [4]. - The third opinion supports the idea that if evidence of money laundering is clear and sufficient, it can be included in the prosecution submission for both crimes [4]. Group 3: Evidence Collection and Use - Evidence related to "self-laundering" collected by supervisory authorities can be used in court as it meets criminal trial standards [10]. - If the prosecutorial authority finds the evidence from supervisory authorities insufficient, it can either supplement the evidence or transfer the case to the police for further investigation [11][12]. Group 4: Prosecution Procedures - If the supervisory authority has established the facts of "self-laundering" and believes it meets prosecution conditions, it can include these facts in the prosecution submission [13]. - The prosecutorial authority can directly add charges of money laundering if it finds sufficient evidence and has consulted with the supervisory and police authorities [14][15].

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]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal interpretation of bribery involving state officials and their specific relations, highlighting the distinction between complicity in bribery and the crime of using influence to accept bribes [1][3]. Group 1: Case Summary - The case involves a state-owned enterprise, A City Guolian Development Group Co., Ltd., where the chairman, referred to as A, facilitated projects for his specific relation, B, who received a total of 2.035 million yuan in kickbacks from third parties [2][7]. - A was aware of B's receipt of kickbacks but claimed ignorance of the specifics, leading to differing interpretations of their culpability [3][6]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Two viewpoints exist regarding the legal classification of A and B's actions: one suggests A violated discipline but does not constitute complicity in bribery, while the other argues they should be considered accomplices due to A's knowledge and tacit approval of B's actions [3][4]. - The article emphasizes that the essence of both crimes is the violation of the integrity of public office, with complicity requiring a shared intent to commit bribery, which can be inferred from A's failure to act against B's receipt of kickbacks [4][5]. Group 3: Subjective and Objective Analysis - Subjectively, A's awareness of B's actions and failure to demand the return of the kickbacks indicates complicity, as A's actions were aimed at benefiting third parties through his official capacity [5][6]. - Objectively, the collaboration between A and B, despite the lack of prior conspiracy, demonstrates a mutual benefit from the bribery, thus fulfilling the criteria for joint criminal responsibility [6][7].