中央纪委国家监委网站 方弈霏 受贿罪。2012年至2023年，李某某利用职务上的便利，为他人或单位在工程项目承揽等事项上谋取利益，非法收受财物折合共计1649万余元。 图为广西壮族自治区桂林市纪委监委工作人员围绕案情进行研讨。朱东华 摄 编者按 实践中，一些党员干部让请托人出资，并以"隐名持股"等形式经商办企业，其中既有违反廉洁纪律行为，又暗藏权钱交易，违纪与违法犯罪行为交织，需透 过表象把握本质，厘清纪法罪界限，依规依纪依法精准定性。本期案例中，李某某要求请托人出资120万元帮助其入股某企业，应如何认定受贿犯罪对象？ 李某某用所收好处费经商办企业怎样定性？李某某的近亲属向其转达他人请托并收受财物，李某某对此知情并默许，二人是否构成共同受贿？我们特邀相关 单位工作人员予以解析。 石文军 广西壮族自治区桂林市象山区人民法院副院长 特邀嘉宾 基本案情： 莫军飞 广西壮族自治区桂林市纪委监委第四监督检查室主任 李某某，1987年11月加入中国共产党。曾任A市某股份有限公司（国有独资公司）党委副书记、副董事长，党委书记、董事长，A市某集团有限公司（国有 独资公司）党委书记、董事长，A市某投资公司（国有独资公司）党委书 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involves former government official Wang, who engaged in corrupt practices by leveraging his influence to benefit a private company, A Company, through collusion with current employees of a state-owned enterprise, leading to significant financial gains from bribery [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Overview - Wang served as the Deputy Director of a state-owned assets supervision commission from August 2015 to December 2018 and retired in January 2019 [1]. - In October 2020, Wang accepted a request from Zhang, the legal representative of A Company, to assist in securing a contract with a state-owned company, B Company [1]. - Wang received a total of 1.8 million yuan in bribes from Zhang, of which he retained 300,000 yuan and distributed the remaining 1.5 million yuan equally among himself and two accomplices, Li and Wu [1][6]. Group 2: Legal Opinions - There are two differing legal opinions regarding the classification of Wang, Li, and Wu's actions [2]. - The first opinion suggests that Wang should be charged with multiple offenses, including utilizing influence for bribery, while Li and Wu should be charged with receiving bribes, each amounting to 500,000 yuan [3]. - The second opinion posits that all three should be considered co-conspirators in bribery, with a total of 1.5 million yuan recognized as the joint crime amount, while Wang's retention of 300,000 yuan constitutes a separate offense of utilizing influence for bribery [3][4]. Group 3: Criminal Responsibility - Wang, Li, and Wu are deemed to have committed joint bribery, with Li recognized as a state worker and Wu as a non-state worker, complicating the classification of their roles [4][5]. - The legal framework indicates that when non-state and state workers collude in bribery, they should be prosecuted as co-conspirators, especially when their actions are interdependent [5][6]. - The total amount of joint bribery is established at 1.5 million yuan, as Wang's personal retention of 300,000 yuan is not included in the shared crime amount due to Li and Wu's lack of knowledge about it [6][7].

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].