Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal interpretation of bribery cases, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the return or surrender of received assets by state officials is treated in relation to bribery charges [1][3]. Summary by Sections Legal Provisions - The "Two Highs" issued an opinion clarifying that if state officials return or surrender received assets promptly, it is not considered bribery. Conversely, if the return occurs due to investigations related to the bribery, it does not affect the recognition of the bribery offense [1][2]. Case Analysis - A case involving a vice president of a court and a private company owner illustrates the complexities of determining bribery. The official received 10 million and later 50 million, with partial returns complicating the assessment of whether these amounts constitute bribery [2][3]. Different Perspectives on Bribery - There are differing opinions on whether the 50 million received should be counted as bribery. One view suggests that since the official attempted to return the funds promptly, it indicates a lack of intent to commit bribery. Another perspective argues that only part of the returned amount should be excluded from the bribery total, as the remaining amount was accepted after the bribery was established [3][4]. Understanding Intent - The interpretation of the law emphasizes that the intent behind receiving and returning assets is crucial. The official's immediate decision to return the 50 million indicates a lack of intent to accept a bribe, while subsequent actions may suggest a change in intent [5][6]. Relationship Between Legal Provisions - The article clarifies the relationship between the two clauses of the legal opinion, emphasizing that the first clause addresses situations without intent to commit bribery, while the second clause deals with cases where intent is present. The case discussed illustrates how the official's actions shifted from rejecting to accepting a bribe, leading to a conclusion of bribery [7].