近期，一则法院判决在投行圈炸开了锅。 齐齐哈尔市龙沙区人民法院对中信建投原投资银行业务管理委员会执行总经理、保荐代表人杜鹏飞涉嫌 受贿罪一案作出一审判决。 杜鹏飞因在振华新材IPO项目中暗度陈仓，通过代持方式突击入股，解禁后套现获利410.64万元，最终 以受贿罪被法院一审判处有期徒刑10年2个月，罚金60万元，违法所得被全额没收上缴国库。 这并非一起普通的资本市场违规案，这起案件的核心突破在于，法院首次明确将国资券商核心业务骨干 认定为《刑法》意义上的"国家工作人员"，打破了过往同类案件多以"非国家工作人员受贿罪"轻判或仅 作行政处罚的行业惯例。 作为深耕投行十年的中层精英，杜鹏飞曾主导多个重大资本项目，却在振华新材IPO前夕，踩着《证券 法》的红线，通过他人代持曲线入股。从150万元代持资金入局，到解禁后410万元巨额获利，最终在审 计署和司法机关的追责下败露。 这起案件不仅是对单个违规行为的严惩，更向资本市场释放出监管加码、司法从严的强烈信号，为投行 从业人员划定了不可逾越的法律红线，执业风险边界正被重新界定。 保荐代表人突击入股，上市后套现获利 审计曝光违规操作 杜鹏飞的违规操作最终在审计监督中浮出水 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Li, a member of the village committee, highlights the misuse of public funds and the legal implications of such actions, specifically regarding the classification of his crimes as embezzlement and misappropriation of public property [3][11][14]. Group 1: Case Background - Li joined the Communist Party in November 2015 and served as a member and accountant of the village committee from 2016 to 2023 [3]. - In 2016, the government approved the expropriation of collective land in C Village, resulting in a compensation payment of 1.4 million yuan being deposited into the village's account [3][10]. - Li misappropriated the 1.4 million yuan compensation during his management of the funds, which were intended for distribution to villagers [10][14]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Li voluntarily surrendered to authorities on May 10, 2023, leading to an investigation and subsequent disciplinary actions [4][5]. - On August 23, 2023, he was expelled from the Party and the case was transferred to the local prosecutor's office for further legal action [5]. - The prosecution formally charged Li with embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, resulting in a combined sentence of 19 years in prison and fines totaling 4.8 million yuan [6][14]. Group 3: Legal Classification of Crimes - Li's actions were classified as embezzlement due to his role as a village committee member, which allowed him to manage public funds [11][14]. - The nature of the 1.4 million yuan compensation was determined to be public property, as it was government funds intended for public benefit, thus qualifying Li's actions as embezzlement [13][14]. - In contrast, Li's misappropriation of 19.61 million yuan from village collective funds was classified as misappropriation due to the funds being considered as belonging to the village collective rather than public property [15][17].