Workflow
斡旋受贿
icon
Search documents
三堂会审丨怎样认定合作投资型受贿的犯罪数额
Core Points - The case involves a public official, referred to as "甲," who engaged in illegal profit-making activities while holding various government positions, leading to charges of bribery and embezzlement [4][5][9] - The investigation revealed that "甲" utilized his official capacity to facilitate business opportunities for private individuals, resulting in significant financial gains for himself [6][7][12] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - "甲" invested 4.3 million yuan in a factory project during his tenure as a police chief, with a personal investment of 2.15 million yuan, and received a total of 4 million yuan in rental income from 2008 to 2023 [4][5] - Over the years, "甲" accepted bribes totaling approximately 14.88 million yuan, with some amounts being unsuccessful attempts [5][6] Investigation Process - The investigation began in December 2022, leading to formal charges in July 2024, with "甲" ultimately receiving a 12-year prison sentence and fines totaling 1.2 million yuan [8][9] Legal Interpretations - The collaboration between "甲" and other public officials in investment activities was deemed a violation of disciplinary regulations, as it directly related to "甲's" official duties and the potential for personal financial gain [10][11] - The court determined that the rental income and compensation received by "甲" from the factory project constituted bribes, as he did not actively participate in the management or investment of the project [12][13] Bribery and Embezzlement Details - "甲" was found to have facilitated business opportunities for private individuals, receiving benefits in return, including cash and other financial advantages [14][15] - The case also involved the employment of "甲's" relative in a company controlled by a businessman, which was interpreted as a means of providing bribes through salary payments and social security contributions [18][19]
承诺斡旋并收钱但未实施斡旋是否为受贿既遂
Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal classification of a case involving a public official, highlighting the distinction between bribery and fraud in the context of influence peddling [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a public official (甲) who accepted 1 million yuan from a private entrepreneur (乙) in exchange for a promise to influence another official (丙) to assist乙 in avoiding criminal charges [1][2]. - There are three differing opinions on how to classify 甲's actions: as fraud, as attempted bribery, or as completed bribery [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Framework - According to Article 388 of the Criminal Law, public officials who use their position to obtain improper benefits for others and accept money can be charged with bribery, specifically influence peddling [2][5]. - Influence peddling is not a separate crime but a form of bribery that protects the integrity of public officials' duties [2][4]. Group 3: Analysis of Actions - 甲's actions meet the criteria for using his position to provide improper benefits, as he had the potential to influence丙 due to their relationship [3][5]. - The payment of 1 million yuan was based on 乙's trust in 甲's influence, indicating a direct relationship between the payment and 甲's position [6]. Group 4: Conclusion - The article concludes that 甲's acceptance of the payment, despite not having communicated with丙, constitutes completed influence peddling, as the act of accepting the money itself indicates a breach of duty [6].