根据刑法第三百八十八条之一规定，离职的国家工作人员利用其原职权或者地位形成的便利条件，通过 其他国家工作人员职务上的行为，为请托人谋取不正当利益，索取请托人财物或者收受请托人财物，数 额较大或有其他较重情节的，构成利用影响力受贿罪。实践中，如果离职的国家工作人员与国家工作人 员勾结，伙同受贿，应以受贿罪的共犯追究刑事责任。笔者结合一起案例进行分析。 第一种意见认为，王某构成利用影响力受贿罪、行贿罪、对非国家工作人员行贿罪，应对其数罪并罚。 李某、吴某分别构成受贿罪和非国家工作人员受贿罪，金额分别按照50万元认定。首先，李某系国家工 作人员，吴某系非国家工作人员。王某利用原职务形成的影响力向李某打招呼，为A公司谋取不正当利 益，并收受张某送予的钱款，其行为构成利用影响力受贿罪，犯罪数额为180万元。其次，王某向国家 工作人员李某请托，为A公司谋取不正当利益，并因此送予李某财物，王某此行为构成行贿罪，犯罪数 额为50万元；王某向非国家工作人员吴某请托，为A公司谋取不正当利益，并因此送予吴某财物，王某 此行为构成对非国家工作人员行贿罪，犯罪数额为50万元。第二种意见认为，王某和李某、吴某构成受 贿罪共同犯罪，犯罪数 ...

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]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses cases of state employees using their positions to inflate transaction processes, resulting in profits for third parties, and analyzes the legal implications of such actions [1][6]. Case Summaries Case One - A state-owned company manager, knowing that a procurement was already established, directed the company to sign a procurement agreement with a specific individual to inflate transaction costs, resulting in a commission payment that was misappropriated [2][8]. - The legal opinions diverge on whether the manager's actions constitute embezzlement or illegal profit-making for relatives, with a consensus leaning towards embezzlement due to the nature of the transaction [4][9]. Case Two - A financing platform manager, in collusion with a government official, inflated transaction processes to facilitate a payment to the official's son for minimal services rendered, despite the company having direct financing options [3][12]. - Similar to Case One, legal opinions vary, but the prevailing view is that the manager's actions constitute bribery and embezzlement due to the intent to benefit a third party while misusing public funds [11][14]. Legal Analysis - The article emphasizes that actions taken by state employees to inflate transactions for personal gain or to benefit specific individuals can lead to serious legal consequences, including charges of embezzlement and bribery [7][11]. - The distinction between embezzlement and illegal profit-making for relatives is crucial, as the former involves direct misappropriation of public funds, while the latter pertains to the improper allocation of business opportunities [10][14].