来源：江苏新闻 家住南京浦口区的周大爷没有想到，自己在集贸市场的一次买菜经历，竟然牵出了一个涉及全国14个省 市113名被害人的特大流窜作案犯罪团伙。 当天，周大爷被一个售卖鹿茸鹿鞭的摊位吸引，摊主喊出"40元一棵"的低价，诱他到偏僻处现切。可切 完之后，摊主却改口称按克计价，竟要价八千多元。周大爷不愿购买，当即遭到摊主和望风男子的威 胁。危急之下，他假意答应回家取钱，将二人引至人多处高声呼救，随后立刻报警，警方迅速锁定并抓 获了犯罪嫌疑人。 案件移送审查起诉后，检察机关紧扣恶势力犯罪的组织特征、行为特征及危害特征，通过调查、走访犯 罪现场，深入研讨、评估犯罪行为的社会危害性，依法认定以栾某某为首的犯罪团伙中，组织性高、作 案次数多、社会危害性大的10名核心骨干成员，共同构成恶势力犯罪组织。检察机关以涉嫌强迫交易罪 对28名被告人提起公诉。 2024年9月30日，法院以强迫交易罪判处28名被告人有期徒刑五年八个月至拘役五个月不等的刑罚，并 处相应罚金。2025年8月1日，检察机关就案件中暴露出的老年人权益保护、集贸市场秩序管理等问题， 向相关主管部门制发检察建议，推动相关部门开展专项治理行动，形成协同保护机制 ...

根据消费者权益保护法，"消费者享有公平交易的权利"，"消费者在购买商品或者接受服务时，有权获 得质量保障、价格合理、计量正确等公平交易条件，有权拒绝经营者的强制交易行为"。 不得不说，这类商家的确是坏了良心，为了挣钱，对消费者什么套路都能玩，什么暗招都能使。360元 的文眉，从市场行情来看，的确不算太贵，但这只是一个诱饵，顾客一旦来店，等待的就是"坑蒙拐 骗"全件套，想要出门，就要付出数千，甚至上万元的高价。 要知道，一个普通的环卫工，收入本不高，一旦上了他们的圈套，特价套餐直接变成"套餐费29800 元"，大半年的收入或许就被榨干了。这样不择手段的做法，吃相的确难看。 千万不要以为，只要顾客付钱，什么买卖都能"铁板钉钉"，就能经得起检验。回看媒体披露的案情，顾 客躺在床上才做了一半的眉毛，店家非得给"升级套餐"，几名同伙轮流"做工作"，"从上午10点多到晚 上，除了上厕所就没从床上起来，其间上厕所也有女的跟着"，直到消费者被掏空了钱包，甚至临时开 通支付宝花呗扣钱。如此"敲骨吸髓"式服务，哪里是公平买卖，这是如假包换的强迫交易，已经触碰了 法律红线。 一起欺客案件引发了舆论关注。 刑法更规定了强迫交易罪，明 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a case of forced trading in the moving service industry, where a service provider was sentenced for using deceptive practices to increase prices after services were rendered, leading to significant financial losses for consumers [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A customer, Mr. Pan, experienced unexpected price increases during a moving service, where the initial agreed price of 700 yuan escalated to 1820 yuan upon arrival at the new location [2]. - The service provider, led by Zhang, used low initial quotes to attract customers and then employed intimidation tactics to enforce additional charges, resulting in a total of 15,165 yuan in forced payments from 37 victims [3]. Group 2: Legal Consequences - The court found Zhang guilty of forced trading, sentencing him to three years in prison and imposing a fine of 10,000 yuan, along with the recovery of the illegal earnings [3]. - The ruling emphasized the importance of consumer rights, advising individuals to document any coercive practices and report them to relevant authorities [3].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves a public official and a private company owner colluding to force businesses to pay for a service that should be free, leading to charges of bribery, money laundering, and abuse of power [2][5][15]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - The public official, identified as the head of A Maritime Bureau, sought to have a private company, controlled by a close associate, handle a new port's electronic data interchange (EDI) declaration services, which are typically free [2][3]. Actions Taken - The official organized a meeting to designate the private company as the EDI agent and pressured other businesses to pay for this service, threatening to deny their EDI applications if they did not comply [3][9]. Financial Transactions - From December 2021 to March 2024, the private company collected over 4.9 million yuan in fees, with the official receiving over 2 million yuan in kickbacks, which were then laundered through various financial maneuvers [3][10]. Divergent Opinions on Legal Classification - Three opinions emerged regarding the classification of the actions: 1. The first opinion suggests the actions constitute forced trading [5]. 2. The second opinion argues for classification as bribery, emphasizing the coercive nature of the actions [6]. 3. The third opinion supports the second but also includes money laundering due to the subsequent financial transactions aimed at concealing the source of the funds [6][11]. Legal Analysis - The actions of the public official and the private company owner are seen as a clear case of bribery, as they exploited the official's position to extract payments for a service that should be free [8][10]. - The laundering of the proceeds through investments and fictitious loan agreements indicates a deliberate attempt to obscure the origins of the illicit funds, fulfilling the criteria for money laundering [11][14]. Abuse of Power - The public official's actions not only violated legal standards but also severely damaged the reputation of the public institution, leading to widespread complaints and media coverage, which constitutes abuse of power [15][16].