数字化时代，个人隐私安全面临前所未有的挑战，酒店偷拍盗摄事件时有发生。床头有"眼"，不仅严重 侵犯公民个人隐私，而且可能衍生出敲诈勒索等犯罪行为，成为社会公众关注与担忧的焦点。 近期，上海市浦东新区检察院办理了专挑高端酒店非法安装窃听、窃照设备的系列案件，通过斩断黑色 产业链，守护公民的"住宿安宁"。 勒索信牵出酒店客房里的隐秘摄像头 2024年12月，市民吴先生在公司收到一封信件。信中附有他在某酒店客房内的私密照片，对方以此要 挟，索要高额"封口费"。个人隐私的曝光风险与随之而来的恐吓，让吴先生的生活和工作陷入巨大困 扰。他最终选择报警求助。 公安机关迅速前往案发酒店调查，发现张某甲入住过安装有偷拍设备的两间客房。侦查人员通过排查张 某甲在上海其他酒店的入住记录，在另外两家酒店也发现了同类偷拍设备。 2025年4月11日，警方在外省某酒店客房内将犯罪嫌疑人张某甲抓获，现场还发现了携带偷拍设备的同 行人员张某乙。随后，同案犯韩某甲、韩某乙相继到案，一个流窜作案的犯罪团伙随之浮出水面。 揪出幕后组织者 公安机关立案后，浦东新区检察院依法介入案件，引导侦查取证方向，确保案件证据链完整、法律适用 准确。 "我们引导 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Huang Jiegen, former Secretary of the Board of Jiangsu Ankao Smart Electric Co., Ltd., has drawn significant attention from the capital market, resulting in a seven-year prison sentence for attempted extortion, despite no financial gain being achieved [1][2][11]. Group 1: Case Background - Jiangsu Ankao Smart Electric Co., Ltd. was established on May 20, 2004, and is headquartered in Liyang, Jiangsu, specializing in high and ultra-high voltage cable connectors [6]. - Huang Jiegen, born in April 1984, joined Ankao Smart Electric in August 2021 as the Secretary of the Board, but was arrested in August 2022 for alleged extortion [6][7]. - The company went public on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on February 28, 2017 [6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The Liyang People's Procuratorate accused Huang of modifying a performance agreement to include a clause that significantly increased the likelihood of the company's default, which he later used to demand compensation [7][17]. - Huang was arrested on August 26, 2022, after the company's chairman, Chen Xiaoling, reported him to the police [8]. - The court found that Huang's actions constituted attempted extortion, leading to a seven-year prison sentence and a fine of 100,000 yuan [11][18]. Group 3: Court Findings - The court determined that Huang's modifications to the performance agreement were made without proper disclosure to Chen, thus constituting a fraudulent act [15][17]. - The court calculated the attempted extortion amount based on the stock price of 42.79 yuan per share for the 21.06 million shares Huang sought, totaling approximately 3.2165 million yuan [17]. - The court acknowledged that Huang's actions were deemed attempted extortion due to external factors preventing the crime from being completed, allowing for a reduced sentence [18]. Group 4: Appeals and Outcomes - Huang appealed the initial ruling, claiming that the performance agreement required multiple approvals and could not have been unilaterally modified [20]. - The second-instance court upheld the original ruling without a hearing, stating that Huang's appeal lacked new evidence and was not valid [21].

颇受资本市场关注的江苏安靠智电股份有限公司（300617.SZ，下称"安靠智电"）时任董秘黄节根敲诈勒索案，近日二审定谳。 江苏省常州市中级人民法院认为，黄节根着手实施了对安靠智电公司及时任总经理、现任董事长兼总经理陈晓凌的犯罪，虽然由于意志以外的原因未能得 逞，分文不获，属犯罪未遂，但已构成敲诈勒索罪，因而裁定维持一审原判，即判处黄节根有期徒刑7年，并罚金10万元。 2025年12月，数位知情人士向经济观察报记者介绍了上述信息。他们亦表示，黄节根已就此案提出申诉。 至12月19日，其申诉尚无结果。 检方指控：黄节根私增违约条款敲诈公司 安靠智电公司成立于2004年5月20日，总部位于江苏常州溧阳，主营业务为高压及超高压电缆的连接件。该公司控股股东和实际控制人为陈晓晖、陈晓凌、 陈晓鸣三兄弟。2017年2月28日，安靠智电在深圳证券交易所挂牌上市。 黄节根，1984年4月生，江西南昌人，金融学博士，曾在和讯信息科技有限公司任投资顾问，2014年加盟当时的国泰君安证券股份有限公司，任资深市场分 析师。 简言之，黄节根在《绩效协议》里"刻意隐瞒其添加'季度'（二字）的情况"，因此极大增加了安靠智电公司违约的概率。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The rise of illegal debt optimization and rights protection organizations has led to a significant shift in judicial recognition from "fraud" to "extortion," indicating a new phase in the crackdown on financial black and gray industries [1][2][3] Group 1: Nature of Illegal Activities - These organizations operate under the guise of helping overdue clients reduce debts but engage in coercive tactics against financial institutions, including forgery and malicious complaints, to extract profits [1][2] - A recent case revealed a gang that, since 2022, used purchased overdue customer information to lure clients into paying for their "rights protection" services, resulting in illegal gains exceeding one million yuan [2][3] Group 2: Legal and Judicial Developments - The judicial system has begun to classify the actions of these organizations as extortion, which carries heavier penalties compared to fraud, thus increasing the legal risks for offenders [3][4] - The shift in legal classification allows for a comprehensive crackdown on the entire criminal chain, targeting both the deception of clients and the coercion of financial institutions [3][4] Group 3: Impact on Financial Institutions - The illegal activities have raised operational costs for financial institutions and disrupted the normal regulatory environment, leading to broader implications for social credit systems [5][6] - The involvement of personal information violations is prevalent, as criminals require sensitive data to execute their schemes, which can lead to further criminal activities such as fraud and money laundering [5] Group 4: Collaborative Governance Efforts - A multi-departmental approach is being implemented to combat the black and gray financial industries, with law enforcement and regulatory bodies working together to enhance legal enforcement and administrative oversight [5][6] - Recent initiatives include the establishment of risk models using technology to identify and warn against malicious complaints, demonstrating a proactive stance in regulatory measures [5][6] Group 5: Achievements in Law Enforcement - Significant progress has been made in various regions, with numerous cases being prosecuted and substantial amounts of money involved, indicating a strong legal deterrent against these illegal activities [6]

Core Viewpoint - The recent judicial ruling marks a significant breakthrough in combating financial black and gray industries, specifically defining illegal agency behavior in the loan assistance sector as extortion, which raises the legal stakes for similar cases [1][6]. Summary by Sections Judicial Ruling and Legal Implications - The case represents the first instance of classifying illegal agency behavior in the loan assistance industry as extortion, establishing a legal precedent that could deter similar actions in the future [1][6]. - The court's decision highlights that coercing financial institutions to waive fees through malicious complaints constitutes extortion, thus clarifying the legal boundaries for such actions [6]. Case Details - The defendants, including Zeng Moupeng, were found guilty of extortion and violating personal information laws, with the total amount involved exceeding one million yuan [3][4]. - The court imposed sentences ranging from three years and ten months to eight years and six months, along with fines between 50,000 and 120,000 yuan [4]. Characteristics of Financial Black and Gray Industries - Financial black and gray industries are evolving, becoming more technical, scenario-based, and professional, utilizing various platforms for illegal activities [7]. - These industries often disguise themselves as legal entities, employing deceptive marketing tactics to lure consumers while engaging in illegal practices such as fabricating evidence and malicious complaints [7]. Ongoing Actions Against Financial Crimes - Authorities are actively responding to the changing landscape of financial black and gray industries, with initiatives to combat fraud and misinformation set to take place from September to December 2025 [8]. - Legal experts suggest a comprehensive approach to dismantle the entire criminal network, including those providing client information and technical support, to effectively address the issue [8].

Group 1 - The case of Zhai Xinxin highlights significant changes in criminal policy regarding extortion and the complexities of defining financial claims within marriage [3][4][6] - The lengthy litigation process, spanning over six years, indicates that the case is not merely a straightforward extortion case, but involves intricate legal interpretations of marital financial disputes [3][5] - The court's decision to classify the financial claims as not constituting extortion reflects a cautious approach to the intersection of criminal and civil law, particularly in the context of short marriages [6][11] Group 2 - The narrative surrounding "gold diggers" and its impact on gender equality reveals societal biases that oversimplify complex individual behaviors into broader stereotypes [7][10] - The emergence of games and media that perpetuate negative stereotypes about women in financial relationships exacerbates gender tensions and societal divisions [8][9] - The case reflects deeper issues within the marriage market, including economic disparities and the traditional gender roles that influence relationship dynamics [11][12][14]

Core Viewpoint - The rise of "professional agents for policy cancellation" in the insurance sector is becoming increasingly concerning, with reports of fraudulent activities and significant financial losses for insurance companies [2][4][14]. Group 1: Fraudulent Activities - A recent case highlighted by the financial regulatory authorities involved individuals using "agent for policy cancellation" as a guise for extortion, resulting in a loss of 2.1762 million yuan for insurance companies and illegal profits of 489,600 yuan for the perpetrators [2][3]. - The phenomenon of "agent for policy cancellation" is prevalent on social media, with many posts claiming high success rates for policy cancellations, attracting numerous comments and interactions from users [4][9]. Group 2: Victim Experiences - Some policyholders reported success rates of 70% to 95% in obtaining refunds through intermediaries, while others faced scams, losing deposits in the process [5][10]. - A case study revealed a policyholder who received 18,000 yuan in refunds after paying a service fee of 1,900 yuan (approximately 10.6%) to the intermediary, despite lacking evidence of wrongdoing by the insurance agent [10][12]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicate that if intermediaries incite policyholders to fabricate or exaggerate claims against insurance companies, it constitutes a clear violation of the law [6][14]. - The insurance sales process is governed by strict regulations, and violations can lead to penalties, including fines ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 yuan for individuals and up to 300,000 yuan for agencies [15][16].

Group 1 - The court sentenced the defendant Zhai to 12 years in prison for extortion and imposed a fine of 100,000 RMB, along with compensation of over 70,000 RMB to the plaintiffs due to economic losses [2][3] - The evidence showed that Zhai and the victim Su had a brief marriage lasting only 42 days, and Zhai's extortion involved Su's personal property without any legal basis for compensation claims [3] Group 2 - The court supported the compensation claims made by the plaintiffs, which were deemed legally valid due to the victim's death and related economic losses [3]

Core Points - The case involves the conviction of Zhai Xinxin for extortion, sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined 100,000 RMB, along with compensation of over 70,000 RMB to the victims [1][2] - The court found that Zhai's actions constituted extortion, as she demanded 10 million RMB in damages and threatened to report her husband, Su Xiangmo, during their brief marriage of 42 days [2] Summary of Events - In March 2017, Zhai and Su began their relationship, purchasing a property in Hainan for over 3.19 million RMB, with Su paying a down payment of 1.99 million RMB [1] - After their marriage in June 2017, Zhai sought a divorce and extorted Su for money, leading to Su paying her 6.6 million RMB and transferring property ownership to her [1] - Su Xiangmo committed suicide on September 7, 2017, leaving a message accusing Zhai of driving him to his death [4] - Legal proceedings began in 2018, with Su's family suing Zhai for the return of assets valued at nearly 10 million RMB [4] - In 2023, Zhai was criminally charged for extortion, leading to her arrest and subsequent trial [4]

Core Viewpoint - The court sentenced the defendant Zhai to 12 years in prison for extortion, along with a fine of 100,000 RMB, and ordered compensation of over 70,000 RMB to the victims due to the economic losses caused by the defendant's actions [1][2]. Summary by Sections Case Background - In March 2017, Zhai established a romantic relationship with the victim Su. They purchased a property in Hainan for over 3.19 million RMB, with Su paying a down payment of nearly 1.99 million RMB. They registered their marriage in June 2017, but Zhai filed for divorce shortly after [1]. - Zhai threatened Su with reporting him and his business unless he paid 10 million RMB in emotional damages and transferred ownership of the Hainan property to her. On July 18, 2017, Su was coerced into paying Zhai 6.6 million RMB and changing the property ownership to Zhai [1]. Legal Proceedings - The court found Zhai's actions constituted extortion, with the amount involved being particularly large. The evidence indicated that Zhai and Su's marriage lasted only 42 days, and there were no joint assets, making Zhai's claims for compensation baseless [2]. - The court supported the claims of the civil plaintiffs, who sought compensation for funeral and transportation expenses totaling over 70,000 RMB due to Su's death [2].