Core Points - The case involves three individuals (A, B, C) conspiring to falsely inflate seed procurement quantities, resulting in an overpayment of 120,000 yuan to Company C, which they later divided among themselves [5][9][10] - A, while serving as the head of the Agricultural Technology Promotion Station, engaged in corrupt practices, including embezzlement and bribery, totaling 2.08 million yuan in bribes and 460,000 yuan in collusion with another employee [6][12][14] - The investigation led to A being expelled from the party and public office, with subsequent criminal charges filed for embezzlement, bribery, and collusion [7][18][20] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - A was responsible for a seed procurement contract, where he, along with B and C, conspired to create a false procurement quantity, leading to an illegal return of 120,000 yuan [4][5] - A's actions included receiving bribes from multiple suppliers, totaling 2.08 million yuan over a decade [6][12] Investigation Process - The investigation began on September 25, 2023, with A being placed under detention, followed by disciplinary actions and criminal charges [7][19] - A was convicted on April 30, 2025, receiving a combined sentence of seven years in prison and a fine of 550,000 yuan [7][18] Legal Interpretations - The actions of A, B, and C were classified as joint embezzlement rather than bribery, as they involved the illegal appropriation of public funds [8][9] - The court determined that A and another employee, D, engaged in joint bribery, with A being the principal actor and D playing a secondary role [15][16]

【内容提要】 实践中，有的国家工作人员利用职务便利，让本单位虚增交易环节，使得第三人获利，由于国家工作人 员实施行为的主观动机不同、虚增交易获利的对象不同，行为性质认定也存在不同，笔者结合案例进行 分析。 【基本案情】 案例一：甲，国有A公司总经理；乙，甲的特定关系人。2022年3月，A公司拟采购一套特种设备，经过 前期工作，A公司已经与设备供应商B公司建立联系，双方经过谈判，初步达成以1000万元市场价采购 设备的意向。为了帮乙获取利益，甲在明知上述情况下，仍以本单位"对特种设备行业不了解、容易高 价采购产品"为由，指使A公司与乙签订委托采购协议，约定由乙帮助A公司开展"市场调研、比价谈 判"等业务，并按照采购额10%的标准收取"委托费"。后A公司以1000万元价格从B公司采购该设备，并 支付乙100万元"委托费"。2024年1月，甲案发，经查，乙只是在B公司的帮助下，向A公司出具了一份 市场调研报告，没有实施其他任何行为，该100万元被乙用于个人开支。 【意见分析】 案例一和案例二中，笔者均同意第二种意见。 国家工作人员出于某种动机，在明知没有必要的情况下，仍利用职权，指使单位虚增交易环节，本质属 于套取 ...