实践中，有的请托人为感谢国家工作人员的帮助，邀请其参与自己开发的项目投资，在此过程中，请托 人以自己名义向银行申请贷款，国家工作人员以房产作抵押担保，请托人将获取的贷款作为国家工作人 员的投资款，此种情况下，能否认定国家工作人员构成受贿，如构成又如何认定受贿数额，易存在不同 认识。笔者结合一起案例进行分析。 章某系某市公安局党委书记、局长，李某是当地资金实力雄厚的房地产商，2020年起，章某多次为李某 开发的房地产项目提供帮助。2022年，为感谢章某，李某多次邀其参与房地产项目投资，并承诺"绝不 会让你亏损""如果投资不赚钱的话会把投资款转为借款给你支付利息"。因李某所在公司信誉优良，融 资能力强，现金流充沛，故章某认为自己的"投资"不会有风险产生。双方商定，先由李某借款200万元 给章某（后章某向李某归还了该200万元），结清其名下某房产的银行抵押贷款本息，再以该房产作为 抵押从银行贷款600万元（章某为了躲在幕后，交代李某去办理此事，以李某名义向银行贷款，本息由 李某支付，章某仅提供房产让其妻子配合李某完成抵押担保手续），作为章某在该房地产项目中的投资 款，该投资款挂在李某名下，并且李某承诺，若项目亏损导 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of a case involving a state-owned enterprise and its officials, focusing on the issue of bribery and the improper allocation of salaries to specific relatives of an official, highlighting the distinction between disciplinary violations and criminal offenses related to bribery [1][3][6]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves Lu, a party secretary and chairman of a state-owned enterprise, who facilitated the hiring of his relatives at a company controlled by Si, leading to inflated salaries for them [2][4]. - From July 2020 to June 2024, the company paid over 140,000 yuan in excess salaries to Lu's relatives compared to standard pay for similar positions [2][5]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - There are two main interpretations regarding Lu's actions: one views the inflated salaries as a violation of disciplinary regulations, while the other sees it as a clear case of bribery due to the quid pro quo nature of the salary arrangements [3][4]. - The second interpretation is supported by the argument that Lu's actions constituted a misuse of his official position to benefit the company, thus meeting the criteria for bribery [4][5]. Group 3: Distinction Between Violations - The article emphasizes the difference between disciplinary violations and criminal bribery, stating that if an official uses their position to benefit others, it can lead to criminal charges if the conditions of bribery are met [6]. - It is noted that if the official's relatives receive salaries significantly above the standard without actual work, and the official is aware but does not intervene, this can constitute bribery [6].