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 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 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].