智通财经记者 | 蔡星卓 智通财经编辑 | 刘海川 据第一财经2026年1月8日报道，北京群益律师事务所主任王智于2025年12月初失联。 报道称，十多年来，王智以"诉讼保全"业务作为宣传，通过签订家庭法律服务合同和高息借款合同的方式从社会吸收资金，每月返利，并利用 抽奖等手段吸引出借人投入更多本金。2025年12月初，出借人发现利息并未准时到账，王智突然失联并将出借人拉黑。后经律所报案，北京市 海淀区经侦支队已经受理并进行出借人登记。 律所主任成"借款人" 当事人赵春芳（化名）向智通财经展示的聊天记录显示，2025年12月2日，群益律师事务所工作人员通知她，前一日，他们得知律所主任失 联。"等了一天，还是没有消息，下班后就及时去报案了。"这位工作人员对接了赵春芳7年有余，自称"事业一部法律顾问"。赵春芳说，"事业 一部"就是律所的市场部。据第一财经报道，群益律所分为销售和律师两个部分，市场部对接出借人，游说他们投入资金，而律师正常接案 子。 赵春芳与群益的交集始于2017年12月，受一位朋友的邀请，她来到群益律师事务所听法律讲座，赵春芳被律所的工作人员推荐了"家庭法律顾 问"服务。"当时，他们介绍，签了'家 ...

起诉书的墨迹未干，资本市场的判决已先至。腰斩的股价、三连亏的业绩、高悬的质押盘背后，一场由 串标引发的企业生存危机正在全面爆发。 2025年12月22日，天玑科技（300245.SZ）一纸《关于收到起诉书的公告》，将公司拖入新一轮舆论旋 涡：上海市虹口区人民检察院以"串通投标罪"对上市公司及三名时任责任人提起公诉。 尽管公司反复强调"生产经营正常"，但资本市场却选择用脚投票——12月23日早盘，天玑科技低开 5.7%，全天换手率仅2.4%，创下近半年新低13.01元，距离今年2月27日盘中历史高点29.13元已腰斩。 这也意味着，一场始于高管个人的法律风波，在历时近两年后，性质已演变为可能撼动公司根基的"单 位犯罪"指控。 个人责任到单位被诉，"串标案"浮出水面 从个人责任到单位被诉，天玑科技的"串标案"走过了漫长的22个月。把时间拨回2024年2月27日，天玑 科技原董事长苏玉军被上海警方以涉嫌串通投标罪刑事拘留。次日，公司紧急发布苏玉军辞去所有职务 的公告。与此同时，苏玉军的儿子苏博火线接任董事长。2月29日，深交所连夜下发关注函，追问"案件 是否涉及公司业务""控制权是否稳定"，公司仅回复"暂无证据表明 ...

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].