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].