Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of a case involving a state-owned enterprise in Nanjing, where officials engaged in corrupt practices by collecting management fees from construction companies, leading to charges of bribery and misappropriation of state assets [3][5][6]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Zhang, a former official at a state-owned enterprise, was involved in collecting over 100 million yuan in management fees from construction companies from 2010 to 2023, which were used for the unit's daily operations and employee bonuses [5][6]. Investigation Process - The investigation began in May 2024, leading to Zhang's detention and subsequent charges of bribery, unit bribery, and misappropriation of state assets. The case was transferred to the local prosecutor's office in November 2024, and Zhang faced disciplinary actions, including expulsion from the party [7][8]. Legal Analysis of Unit Decision-Making - The article examines whether the actions taken by Zhang and his colleague constituted a unit decision. It concludes that their collective agreement to charge management fees represented the unit's overall intent, as it was supported by other leaders and employees [9][10][11]. Distinction Between Bribery and Embezzlement - The article outlines the differences between unit bribery and embezzlement, emphasizing that the former involves collective decision-making by the unit, while the latter is an individual act of misappropriation. In this case, the actions were classified as unit bribery due to the nature of the decision-making process [14][15]. Misappropriation of State Assets - The article discusses the classification of the management fees as state assets and the implications of distributing part of these funds to employees. It argues that the actions of Zhang and his colleagues constituted misappropriation of state assets, as the funds were derived from unit bribery and distributed under the guise of bonuses [16][17][18]. Conclusion on Legal Charges - The article concludes that the actions of the state-owned enterprise and its officials violated both unit bribery and misappropriation laws, warranting separate legal penalties for each offense due to the distinct legal interests they infringe upon [19][20].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the illegal distribution of bonuses by Huang and his associates at Unit A, which was a self-financing institution before its transformation into a company, leading to a total misappropriation of 1.25 million yuan [1][2][5]. Group 1: Actions and Consequences - Huang, while serving as the Party Secretary and Director, conspired with others to misappropriate profits from the unit by creating fictitious transactions and issuing unauthorized bonuses [1][2]. - The total amounts distributed as "extra bonuses" were 600,000 yuan to Huang, 300,000 yuan to Chen, 200,000 yuan to Yuan, and 150,000 yuan to Lin, with ordinary employees unaware of these transactions [1][2]. - The actions taken by Huang and his associates were characterized as a collective crime of embezzlement, with the total amount involved being 1.25 million yuan [2][6]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Three viewpoints exist regarding the legal classification of Huang's actions: violation of salary regulations, misappropriation of state assets, and embezzlement [2][4]. - The first viewpoint suggests that Huang's actions violated the 2015 "Disciplinary Regulations of the Communist Party of China," while the second argues for the classification of his actions as misappropriation of state assets [2][4]. - The third viewpoint, which is supported by the author, classifies the actions as embezzlement, emphasizing that the funds involved were public property despite the unit's self-financing status [2][5][6]. Group 3: Regulatory Framework - The case highlights the importance of adhering to financial regulations and the legal framework governing state-owned enterprises, even those that are self-financing [3][5]. - Huang's actions were deemed to exceed the boundaries of party discipline and involved a clear violation of established financial procedures [3][6]. - The legal implications of the case underscore the necessity for compliance with regulations regarding the management and distribution of public funds [4][6].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves Chen, who misappropriated employee education subsidies from a state-owned company, leading to a debate on the legal classification of his actions, with a consensus leaning towards the charge of embezzlement of state assets [2][6]. Group 1: Misappropriation of Funds - Chen, as the party branch secretary and responsible person of the company, conspired with others to fraudulently obtain over 350,000 yuan in employee education subsidies by falsifying invoices and documents [1][6]. - The funds were then distributed to employees under the guise of subsidies, with Chen personally receiving 40,000 yuan from this scheme [1][6]. Group 2: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three differing opinions on how to classify Chen's actions: one suggests it was a violation of regulations regarding subsidy distribution, another views it as embezzlement, while the third, which is favored, classifies it as the crime of misappropriating state assets [2][3]. - The argument against classifying the actions as a violation of subsidy distribution is based on the nature of the fraud, which involved deceitful acquisition rather than merely improper distribution [3][4]. Group 3: Implications of Misappropriation - The actions taken by Chen and his associates are deemed to constitute the crime of misappropriating state assets, as they violated national regulations and involved significant amounts of money [6]. - The case meets the criteria for prosecution under the law, given the amount involved exceeds the threshold for serious offenses against state assets [6].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the misuse of public funds by a former court official, highlighting issues of corruption and the establishment of an unauthorized "small treasury" for personal gain [3][9][10]. Summary by Relevant Sections Basic Case Facts - The individual in question, referred to as Xiang, misappropriated a total of 356.9 million yuan in execution guarantee funds and judicial relief funds from 2007 to 2012, using them for daily expenses of the court [3][9]. - Over the years, Xiang and accomplices embezzled over 354 million yuan and misappropriated 60 million yuan for personal investments, including stock trading and real estate [3][4]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in September 2020, leading to Xiang's expulsion from the party and public office by August 2021 [4]. - The case was transferred to the C District People's Procuratorate for prosecution, resulting in a ten-year prison sentence for Xiang in March 2023, along with fines totaling 655,000 yuan [4][5]. Nature of the "Small Treasury" - The "small treasury" was established by Xiang and involved the unauthorized management of public funds, which were supposed to be deposited in a designated court account [7][9]. - The establishment of such a treasury is classified as a violation of financial discipline, particularly as it occurred before the 2016 regulatory changes [8][9]. Classification of Crimes - The actions of Xiang and his accomplices were classified as embezzlement rather than the misappropriation of state assets, as the funds were considered public property [10][12]. - The court determined that the funds in the "small treasury" were public assets, and the actions constituted a collective crime of embezzlement [11][12]. Misappropriation of Funds for Personal Use - Xiang directed the transfer of 350,000 yuan from the "small treasury" to his personal account for stock trading, which was classified as misappropriation of public funds [13][14]. - The court ruled that this act constituted a completed crime of misappropriation, despite the subsequent return of the funds [14]. Transition from Misappropriation to Embezzlement - In a specific instance, Xiang misappropriated 300,000 yuan in execution guarantee funds, which transitioned from misappropriation to embezzlement when he conspired to illegally retain the funds [15][18]. - The court found that Xiang's actions demonstrated a clear intent to illegally possess public funds, leading to a classification of his actions as embezzlement [17][18].

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the misappropriation of state-owned assets by a management team in a state-owned joint venture, highlighting the legal interpretations of their actions and the appropriate charges against them [1][2][6]. Group 1: Case Background - Chen, appointed by the A City Transportation Committee, served as the Party Secretary and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Company B, which is a limited liability company with 50% state-owned and 50% private capital [1]. - Between 2012 and 2014, Chen and other executives illegally distributed a total of over 7.98 million yuan under the guise of "performance rewards" to management personnel, with Chen personally receiving over 940,000 yuan [1]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Three differing legal opinions exist regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Some argue it constitutes joint embezzlement due to the illegal appropriation of state funds [2]. 2. Others believe it amounts to the illegal distribution of state-owned assets [2]. 3. The prevailing view is that it constitutes abuse of power by state-owned enterprise personnel, as it resulted in significant losses to state interests [2][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - The actions do not meet the criteria for embezzlement as defined by Article 382 of the Criminal Law, which pertains to individual actions rather than collective decisions made by a unit [3]. - The behavior also does not qualify as the illegal distribution of state-owned assets under Article 396, as Company B is a joint venture and not a wholly state-owned entity [4][5]. - Chen's actions are classified as abuse of power under Article 168, as he violated his duties and caused significant losses to state interests [6][7].