吉林检察机关依法对张巍涉嫌贪污、国有公司人员滥用职权、受贿案提起公诉 央视网消息：据"最高人民检察院"微信公众号消息，检察机关依法分别对胡延生、张巍、潘发勇提起公 诉。 吉林检察机关依法对胡延生涉嫌受贿案提起公诉 日前，吉林省委巡视组原副组长、巡视专员胡延生（正厅级）涉嫌受贿罪一案，由吉林省监察委员会调 查终结，移送检察机关审查起诉。经吉林省人民检察院指定管辖，由白城市人民检察院依法向白城市中 级人民法院提起公诉。案件正在进一步办理中。 检察机关在审查起诉阶段，依法告知了被告人胡延生享有的诉讼权利，并依法讯问了被告人，听取了辩 护人意见。白城市人民检察院起诉指控：被告人胡延生利用担任长春市财政局局长、吉林省委巡视组副 组长等职务上的便利，为他人谋取利益，非法收受他人财物，数额特别巨大，依法应当以受贿罪追究其 刑事责任。 检察机关在审查起诉阶段，依法告知了被告人潘发勇享有的诉讼权利，并依法讯问了被告人，听取了辩 护人的意见。黔东南州人民检察院起诉指控：被告人潘发勇利用担任毕节织金循环经济新区党工委委 员、管委会副主任，毕节市工业和能源委员会党组书记、主任，织金县委副书记、县长等职务便利，为 他人谋取利益，非法收 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the case of Zhao, a former executive of a state-owned enterprise, who is implicated in multiple violations of party discipline and criminal offenses, including abuse of power and bribery, leading to significant financial losses for the company [1][4]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Zhao served as the Party Secretary and Chairman of a state-owned materials company and later as Chairman of a state-controlled company. He was expelled from the Party in 2017 for serious violations of work discipline [2][3]. - Zhao engaged in risky commodity trading without real asset transfers, resulting in substantial losses for the company due to the failure of trading partners [2][3]. Bribery and Abuse of Power - From 2005 to 2017, Zhao accepted bribes totaling over 21.91 million RMB while in office and after leaving, leveraging his position to benefit certain individuals and companies [3][12]. - Zhao personally guaranteed loans for a private metallurgy company without proper authorization, leading to a court ruling that imposed a liability of over 56.03 million RMB on his company [3][10]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - In August 2023, Zhao was investigated for suspected job-related crimes, leading to formal charges in July 2024 and a public prosecution in March 2025 [4][5]. - On June 20, 2025, Zhao was sentenced to 11 years and 6 months in prison for his crimes, including a fine of 2 million RMB [4][5]. Application of Disciplinary Regulations - The article emphasizes the importance of accurately applying disciplinary regulations to clarify the boundaries between violations of party discipline and criminal acts, particularly in cases involving state-owned enterprise personnel [6][7]. - Zhao's actions were deemed to violate work discipline as he knowingly engaged in high-risk transactions that led to significant losses, warranting disciplinary action under the Party's regulations [8][9]. Financial Misconduct and Consequences - Zhao's unauthorized guarantees for loans and his involvement in risky trading practices resulted in severe financial repercussions for the state-owned enterprise, highlighting the need for stringent oversight and accountability in state-owned companies [10][11]. - The case illustrates the legal framework surrounding the abuse of power in state-owned enterprises, emphasizing the consequences of such actions on national interests [10][11].

Core Points - The article discusses the legal implications of Liu's actions as the general manager of a state-owned enterprise, specifically regarding the abuse of power and bribery [5][6][15] - It highlights the distinction between two types of abuse of power crimes under Chinese law: one involving state officials and the other involving employees of state-owned enterprises [1][8] Group 1: Case Background - Liu served as the general manager of a state-owned real estate management company from 2015 to 2020, responsible for managing public housing [2] - The company was tasked with managing 5,800 public housing units and ensuring the safety of state assets [2] - Liu was involved in approving the transfer of public housing rights, which required adherence to specific regulations regarding fees and evaluations [3] Group 2: Actions and Consequences - Between 2016 and 2020, Liu received over 500,000 yuan in bribes to reduce or waive transfer fees for public housing rights [3][4] - Liu's actions resulted in the improper waiver of fees totaling over 180,000 yuan, which should have been collected and deposited into the municipal treasury [4][15] - After the investigation, the involved parties reimbursed the waived fees, but this did not negate the losses incurred during Liu's tenure [4][15] Group 3: Legal Opinions - There are differing opinions on how to classify Liu's actions: one view suggests he should be charged with abuse of power as a state-owned enterprise employee, while another argues for classification as a state official [5][6] - The first opinion emphasizes the significant loss to the state-owned enterprise due to Liu's actions, while the second focuses on his role as a representative of a state agency [5][6][8] Group 4: Legal Framework - The article outlines the legal definitions and implications of abuse of power under Chinese law, specifically referencing Articles 397 and 168 of the Criminal Law [1][8] - It explains that the abuse of power crime involves actions that lead to significant losses to public assets and interests, with specific thresholds for what constitutes "major losses" [13][14][15]

Group 1 - The core concept of equity income rights financing agreements involves separating ownership and income rights to meet specific financing needs, which can be exploited for illicit benefits in cases of bribery [1] - In a case involving a state-owned company, an executive misused their position to facilitate a private company's financing through an equity income rights agreement, leading to significant financial losses for the state-owned entity [2][3] - The financing agreement was structured to avoid regulatory scrutiny by transferring only income rights, allowing the actual investors to remain anonymous [1][2] Group 2 - The private company, B, sought investment from the state-owned A company for a high-end medical device project, but faced challenges due to high initial costs and long profit cycles [2] - The executive, referred to as A, facilitated the investment by manipulating project evaluations and bypassing standard risk controls, resulting in a 600 million yuan investment from A company into B's project [2][3] - Following B's successful IPO, the executive arranged for a low-priced transfer of income rights, which significantly undervalued the asset compared to market rates, indicating a potential scheme for profit extraction [3][8] Group 3 - The case raised legal debates regarding whether the executive's actions constituted bribery or merely market transactions, with differing opinions on how to assess the value of the received benefits [4][5] - The analysis concluded that the executive's actions were indeed a form of bribery, as they involved a clear agreement to exchange benefits for favorable treatment in investment decisions [6][11] - The executive's actions led to a significant loss for the state-owned company, amounting to 180 million yuan due to the misrepresentation of the private company's financial health [3][12]