基本释义 《中国共产党纪律处分条例》第一百零三条列出6项违反有关规定从事营利活动的行为，其中第4项即从 事有偿中介活动。依照规定，从事有偿中介活动，情节较轻的，给予警告或者严重警告处分；情节较重 的，给予撤销党内职务或者留党察看处分；情节严重的，给予开除党籍处分。 有偿中介活动，是指以营利为目的，通过为销售方和购买方、服务人和服务对象等双方沟通信息、提供 便利而收取财物的活动。其违纪行为在客观方面须具备两个条件：一是进行了中介活动，二是谋取了利 益。 来源/中央纪委国家监委网站 党员干部违规从事有偿中介活动谋取利益，严重破坏公平公正的竞争环境，扰乱市场经济秩序，影响党 员、干部秉公办事，甚至诱发以权谋私、权钱交易，应当予以党纪责任追究。 End 审核/昆纪宣 责编/殷雷 吕文康 编辑/李颜 一些党员干部借助本人职务所获取的信息或结识的人脉，在单位或个人之间"牵线搭桥"，收受"中介 费"的情形十分复杂。被"牵线搭桥"的双方之所以能够合作成功，与党员干部的地位、身份、职务无法 彻底脱离干系，但又不存在必然绝对的因果关系。具体案件中，在认定行为性质时，不能简单机械地 以"只要收钱均构成受贿"或"只要有'牵线'性质均 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal distinctions between two forms of bribery in China: "intermediary bribery" and "influence bribery," highlighting the nuances in their definitions and applications under the law [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Definitions - Intermediary bribery occurs when a state worker uses their position to facilitate benefits for a third party, while influence bribery involves close associates of state workers leveraging their relationships to gain benefits [1][2]. - The key difference lies in the nature of the relationship between the parties involved; intermediary bribery is strictly between state workers, whereas influence bribery can involve non-state workers as well [1][3]. Group 2: Case Analysis - The case presented involves two individuals, A and B, who have a professional relationship and a history of working together, leading to a request for assistance in a project that resulted in a bribe [2][4]. - There are differing opinions on how to classify the actions of A, with some arguing for ordinary bribery, others for influence bribery, and a third perspective supporting intermediary bribery based on the nature of A's position and actions [3][4]. Group 3: Judicial Interpretation - The Supreme People's Court has clarified that "using one's position" can include both direct authority and indirect influence through professional relationships [4][5]. - The analysis of the case suggests that A's actions were primarily influenced by their official position rather than personal relationships, supporting the classification of the behavior as intermediary bribery [5][6].

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]

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].