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].