根据刑法第三百八十八条之一规定，离职的国家工作人员利用其原职权或者地位形成的便利条件，通过 其他国家工作人员职务上的行为，为请托人谋取不正当利益，索取请托人财物或者收受请托人财物，数 额较大或有其他较重情节的，构成利用影响力受贿罪。实践中，如果离职的国家工作人员与国家工作人 员勾结，伙同受贿，应以受贿罪的共犯追究刑事责任。笔者结合一起案例进行分析。 第一种意见认为，王某构成利用影响力受贿罪、行贿罪、对非国家工作人员行贿罪，应对其数罪并罚。 李某、吴某分别构成受贿罪和非国家工作人员受贿罪，金额分别按照50万元认定。首先，李某系国家工 作人员，吴某系非国家工作人员。王某利用原职务形成的影响力向李某打招呼，为A公司谋取不正当利 益，并收受张某送予的钱款，其行为构成利用影响力受贿罪，犯罪数额为180万元。其次，王某向国家 工作人员李某请托，为A公司谋取不正当利益，并因此送予李某财物，王某此行为构成行贿罪，犯罪数 额为50万元；王某向非国家工作人员吴某请托，为A公司谋取不正当利益，并因此送予吴某财物，王某 此行为构成对非国家工作人员行贿罪，犯罪数额为50万元。第二种意见认为，王某和李某、吴某构成受 贿罪共同犯罪，犯罪数 ...

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].