Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of a case involving a state-owned enterprise in Nanjing, where officials engaged in corrupt practices by collecting management fees from construction companies, leading to charges of bribery and misappropriation of state assets [3][5][6]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Zhang, a former official at a state-owned enterprise, was involved in collecting over 100 million yuan in management fees from construction companies from 2010 to 2023, which were used for the unit's daily operations and employee bonuses [5][6]. Investigation Process - The investigation began in May 2024, leading to Zhang's detention and subsequent charges of bribery, unit bribery, and misappropriation of state assets. The case was transferred to the local prosecutor's office in November 2024, and Zhang faced disciplinary actions, including expulsion from the party [7][8]. Legal Analysis of Unit Decision-Making - The article examines whether the actions taken by Zhang and his colleague constituted a unit decision. It concludes that their collective agreement to charge management fees represented the unit's overall intent, as it was supported by other leaders and employees [9][10][11]. Distinction Between Bribery and Embezzlement - The article outlines the differences between unit bribery and embezzlement, emphasizing that the former involves collective decision-making by the unit, while the latter is an individual act of misappropriation. In this case, the actions were classified as unit bribery due to the nature of the decision-making process [14][15]. Misappropriation of State Assets - The article discusses the classification of the management fees as state assets and the implications of distributing part of these funds to employees. It argues that the actions of Zhang and his colleagues constituted misappropriation of state assets, as the funds were derived from unit bribery and distributed under the guise of bonuses [16][17][18]. Conclusion on Legal Charges - The article concludes that the actions of the state-owned enterprise and its officials violated both unit bribery and misappropriation laws, warranting separate legal penalties for each offense due to the distinct legal interests they infringe upon [19][20].