根据《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉第九十三条第二款的解释》（以下简 称《解释》），村民委员会等村基层组织人员协助人民政府从事有关行政管理工作时，如救灾、抢险、 防汛、优抚、扶贫、移民、救济款物的管理，社会捐助公益事业款物的管理等，属于刑法第九十三条第 二款规定的"其他依照法律从事公务的人员"。实践中，对于村干部协助跨行政区域的人民政府从事公务 时，其身份是否属于"其他依照法律从事公务的人员"，存在不同认识。笔者结合具体案例进行分析。 许某某，中共党员，某县A镇B村党支部书记。2019年5月，某区C街道办事处按照上级安排结对帮扶B 村，主要帮扶B村发展壮大特色产业、改善基础设施条件等。2019年7月，B村村民委员会为解决村民生 产生活用水问题，向C街道办事处申请专项资金修建水池，C街道办事处经实地考察后，同意从本级财 政资金中列支30万元用于帮扶B村修建水池。C街道办事处考虑到B村不在其行政区域内，不便于直接实 施该项目，便委托B村村民委员会实施，由许某某牵头协调，C街道办事处负责验收，并按照项目实施 进度拨付资金。B村村民委员会在实施上述项目过程中，许某某采取虚开建材发票的方式，以项目 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise of commercial corruption in the short video industry, highlighting a specific case involving a senior executive at a short video platform who embezzled over 140 million yuan through fraudulent schemes [2][4]. Group 1: Industry Overview - The short video industry has experienced rapid growth and intensified competition since 2020, prompting platforms to implement diverse reward schemes to capture market share [1]. - The increase in the number of companies and their expansion has led to a rise in commercial corruption cases, with the difficulty of power regulation contributing to this trend [4]. Group 2: Case Study - A senior executive, identified as Feng, exploited his position to design a service reward policy that appeared legitimate but was used to siphon off over 140 million yuan through shell companies and virtual currencies [2][3]. - The investigation revealed that Feng collaborated with suppliers to exploit policy loopholes and falsified documents to claim subsidies, resulting in significant financial misconduct [3]. - A comprehensive evidence system was established to trace the embezzled funds, leading to the recovery of over 90 bitcoins and subsequent convictions of Feng and his accomplices for embezzlement [4]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Context - The primary crimes identified in the report are embezzlement and commercial bribery, which are prevalent among corporate personnel leveraging their authority for illegal gains [5]. - Recent legal reforms have increased scrutiny and penalties for corruption within private enterprises, prompting companies to enhance their internal audits and monitoring processes [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal proceedings and sentencing of Adam Tan (谭向东), the former CEO of HNA Group, who was convicted of multiple financial crimes, including breach of trust and loan fraud, resulting in a six-year prison sentence [2][17]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Adam Tan was sentenced to six years in prison for three crimes: breach of trust damaging the interests of a listed company, loan fraud, and embezzlement [2][17]. - The Haikou Intermediate People's Court separated the cases of Tan and other executives due to Tan's U.S. citizenship, leading to different trial proceedings [10][4]. - The court's decision on Tan's case was announced on July 17, 2025, following the earlier sentencing of other executives, including Chen Feng, who received a total of 12 years in prison [13][16]. Group 2: Background of Adam Tan - Adam Tan, born in March 1967 in Jiangsu, China, became a U.S. citizen and joined HNA Group in its early days in the 1990s [5]. - He held various positions within HNA Group, including Vice Chairman and CEO, before the company was taken over by the Hainan provincial government in 2020 [5][6]. - Tan, along with other executives, was taken into custody by Hainan police in September 2021 due to criminal allegations [6][8]. Group 3: Regulatory Actions - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) previously penalized Tan and Chen Feng for serious violations related to massive related-party transactions and fund misappropriation from 2018 to 2020 [17][18]. - The CSRC imposed a ten-year market ban on Tan, citing his role as a key executive and the severity of his violations [18][19]. - The legal charges against Tan are closely related to the CSRC's findings, which indicated significant breaches of fiduciary duty that led to substantial losses for the company [19][17].

Core Viewpoint - Adam Tan, the former CEO of HNA Group, was sentenced to 6 years in prison for multiple crimes including breach of trust, loan fraud, and embezzlement [1][4]. Group 1: Background of Adam Tan - Adam Tan, born in March 1967 in Jiangsu, China, later became a U.S. citizen and joined HNA Group in its early days during the 1990s [2]. - He served in various leadership roles within HNA Group, including Vice Chairman and CEO from 2016 to 2020, before being replaced after the group was taken over by the Hainan provincial government [2]. - In September 2021, he was taken into custody by Hainan police due to criminal allegations, alongside other key figures in the company [2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The Haikou Intermediate People's Court sentenced Tan on July 17, 2025, for three crimes, resulting in a total of 6 years imprisonment and corresponding fines [4]. - The court's decision followed a series of criminal charges against Tan and other executives, including Chen Feng, who faced similar accusations [2][3]. - The court proceedings were split into two cases due to Tan's U.S. citizenship, which affected the legal process [2]. Group 3: Regulatory Actions - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) previously penalized Tan and Chen Feng for serious violations related to HNA Group's financial practices between 2018 and 2020, including undisclosed related-party transactions [4][5]. - The CSRC imposed a 10-year market ban on Tan, citing his significant role in the company's illegal activities [5]. - The breach of trust crime is defined under Chinese law as actions by company executives that result in substantial losses to the company, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to fines [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The current management of Jiaoda Onlly is committed to holding former executives accountable for their alleged misconduct involving insurance purchases and refunds, which have resulted in significant financial losses for the company [6][9][21]. Summary by Sections Background of the Case - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Commission issued a warning letter indicating that Jiaoda Onlly had issues with the disclosure of executive compensation in its 2016 and 2018 annual reports [5]. - The current management revealed that former executives, including Yang Guoping, used company funds to purchase group insurance and subsequently refunded the premiums to their personal accounts [5][6]. Details of the Insurance Transactions - In October 2016, Jiaoda Onlly transferred 3.8 million yuan to Tianan Life for group insurance premiums, with the insured being former executives [8]. - In November 2017, Yang Guoping signed for a refund of 1.0936 million yuan, with a total of 3.7924 million yuan refunded to five former executives [8]. - In January 2018, the company paid a total of 12.84 million yuan for another group insurance policy, with refunds occurring in January 2019 totaling 1.584 million yuan to the same group of executives [8]. Legal and Compliance Issues - The management stated that these transactions were not disclosed publicly and lacked proper decision-making processes, including board resolutions and contract approvals [9]. - Legal opinions indicated that the actions of the former executives potentially violated laws regarding the misappropriation of company assets, constituting a crime of embezzlement [9][11]. Current Management Actions - Since March 2023, the current management has initiated legal actions against the former executives, discovering that their actions resulted in a loss of 21 million yuan in principal and interest [11]. - The management has reported the case to the police and submitted additional evidence, although they faced challenges in obtaining some information due to the covert nature of the transactions [13][14]. Shareholder Dynamics - The current management emphasized that their pursuit of accountability is aligned with the interests of their major shareholder, Dazhong Transportation, which holds a significant stake in Jiaoda Onlly [21]. - As of the first quarter of 2025, the major shareholders include Shanghai Yun Jian Industrial Development Co., which holds over 30% of the shares, while Dazhong Transportation holds 14.48% [19][21].

Core Viewpoint - The company is facing legal issues related to former executives who allegedly misappropriated company funds for personal insurance policies, leading to significant financial implications and potential criminal charges against those involved [2][5][12]. Group 1: Legal Issues and Developments - The company reported that the police decided not to file a case against the former executives involved in the alleged misconduct, prompting the company to apply for administrative review [2]. - The company has submitted new evidence, including a legal opinion from a law firm, indicating that the actions of the former executives may constitute embezzlement and violate laws regarding the misappropriation of company assets [2][12]. - The company filed a criminal report with the police on June 24, 2023, against five former executives for damaging company interests, which was accepted by the authorities [2][5]. Group 2: Background of the Company - Founded in December 1997, the company is a well-known player in China's health food industry and went public in 2021, focusing on health products and elderly care services [4]. - The company has undergone multiple changes in its controlling shareholders, with the latest change occurring in August 2022, when the controlling shareholder shifted to Shanghai Yunjian Industrial Development Co., Ltd. [4]. Group 3: Details of the Alleged Misconduct - Between 2016 and 2019, the former executives purchased group insurance policies using company funds and subsequently received refunds to their personal accounts, totaling approximately 16.93 million yuan [6][8]. - The first insurance contract was initiated in October 2016, with a payment of 3.8 million yuan made to Tianan Life Insurance, covering six individuals, including the former chairman and other key executives [6][8]. - The company discovered that there were no formal approval processes or documentation supporting the insurance purchases, raising significant compliance concerns [7][12]. Group 4: Evidence and Findings - The company conducted an internal review following a request from the tax bureau, which led to the discovery of irregularities in the insurance payments made in 2018 [10][11]. - Independent third-party reports have indicated that the actions of the former executives violated company regulations and relevant laws, further supporting the company's claims against them [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The company disclosed that five former executives, including Yang Guoping, engaged in illegal activities related to the purchase and cancellation of insurance policies, resulting in significant financial misconduct [2][3][4]. Group 1: Incident Discovery - The company discovered the misconduct during a self-inspection prompted by a notice from the tax bureau on November 23, 2022, regarding insurance fees and tax payments [2]. - A total of 12.84 million yuan (approximately 1.28 million) in insurance fees from 2018 was identified without corresponding insurance contracts, alongside an additional 3.8 million yuan (approximately 0.38 million) from 2016 [2]. Group 2: Misconduct Details - From 2016 to 2019, the five former executives used company funds to purchase insurance policies and subsequently withdrew 16.9372 million yuan (approximately 1.69 million) to their personal accounts through policy cancellations [3]. - The actions of the executives were characterized as "dark box operations," lacking necessary approvals from the board and shareholders, which is a violation of company regulations [3]. Group 3: Legal Actions - The company filed a criminal report with the local police in June 2023, seeking accountability for the actions of the five former executives [4]. - Following the report, the police did not initiate a case, prompting the company to apply for administrative review and submit additional evidence [4]. Group 4: Company Commitment - The company expressed its commitment to pursue accountability for the former executives' illegal actions to protect the rights of the company and its shareholders [5].

Core Points - A luxury McLaren sports car was auctioned for 892,800 yuan, significantly lower than its original price of 4,068,000 yuan in 2014, highlighting a drastic depreciation in value [1][2] - The original owner of the car, Dong Yingzhi, was the former chairman of Jilin Province Baishan Jiangyuan Rural Commercial Bank, who was sentenced to 10 years and 6 months in prison for embezzlement [1][8] - The auction attracted over 10,000 viewers but only one bidder participated, indicating a lack of interest or confidence in the asset [2][4] Company and Industry Summary - The McLaren sports car was originally registered in July 2017 and had a mileage of only 5,600 kilometers, yet it showed signs of mold in the interior, raising concerns about its condition [4][6] - The auction was conducted under the judicial asset auction platform of Alibaba, which reflects the growing trend of online auctions for seized assets [1][2] - Dong Yingzhi's case is part of a broader issue of financial misconduct within the banking sector, as evidenced by the Jiangyuan Rural Commercial Bank's history of being listed as a dishonest executor multiple times [10][12]

Group 1 - The core argument revolves around the classification of village cadres as state workers based on their engagement in public duties, particularly in the context of land expropriation and compensation [1][9] - Case one illustrates a scenario where village cadre A and official B conspired to fraudulently obtain over 5 million yuan in compensation by fabricating population and land area documents, raising questions about their legal accountability [2][4] - Case two involves cadre C, who improperly allocated compensation to individuals not entitled to it, resulting in over 5 million yuan in losses, highlighting the misuse of authority in local governance [3][5] Group 2 - There are differing opinions on the legal classification of the actions taken by cadres A and C, with one view suggesting they committed abuse of power, while another argues for the classification of their actions as embezzlement [4][14] - The distinction between public duties and village management is crucial in determining the legal status of village cadres, as their actions may fall under different legal frameworks depending on their engagement in governmental functions [7][9] - The analysis emphasizes that the nature of the funds involved—whether they are public or collective assets—plays a significant role in determining the applicable legal consequences for the actions of the village cadres [12][13]

Core Points - The case involves a senior financial executive, Wei, who embezzled a total of 9.792 million RMB from the company through fraudulent contracts with a consulting firm he controlled [1][2] - Wei was sentenced to six years in prison and fined 200,000 RMB for his actions, which were characterized as a significant breach of trust and misuse of his position [2] Summary by Sections Case Details - Wei served as the financial director and later as vice president of a major internet search engine company, overseeing financial management [1] - Between March 2018 and June 2019, he exploited his position to sign multiple false service agreements, leading to the embezzlement of funds [1] Legal Proceedings - The company reported the case to the authorities in April 2020, resulting in Wei's arrest and the freezing of related bank accounts [1] - During the trial, Wei returned 500,000 RMB to the company with the help of relatives, and the company expressed understanding towards his actions [1] Court's Findings - The court determined that Wei's actions constituted a serious crime of embezzlement, given the substantial amount involved and the nature of his position [2] - The judge highlighted the "collusion and self-dealing" aspect of Wei's crime, emphasizing the breach of fiduciary duty expected from a senior financial officer [2]