来源：法眼看市 放贷好处费怎么收？近日，法眼获悉上海二中院的判决书。 上诉人（原审被告人）庄某，男，1990年出生，本科文化，原某某公司宝山支行（以下简称农商银行宝 山支行）市场二部客户经理。因本案于2023年5月5日被刑事拘留，同年6月8日被逮捕。 上海市宝山区人民法院判决一审认定：2019年7月至2022年11月，被告人庄某在担任农商银行宝山支行 营业部对公客户经理、市场二部客户经理期间，利用负责对该行中小微企业担保贷款业务进行审核的职 务便利，在明知贷款中介石某（已判决）介绍的贷款申请人相关贷款材料存在虚假财务数据的情况下， 未履行严格审查义务，违规审核通过上述贷款申请人的贷款申请，并在贷款发放后多次从石某处收取好 处费。 经查，被告人庄某共计违规向23家公司发放中小微企业担保贷款共计人民币1亿余元，并从石某处收取 相关好处费共计30余万元。 2023年5月5日，被告人庄某被公安机关抓获到案，到案后如实供述上述犯罪事实。 另查明，23家涉案公司在申请贷款期间提交的材料经审计均含有虚假财务数据；截至公安机关立案时， 共有8家涉案公司贷款逾期未偿还，涉及金额共计2100万元。 案件审理期间，被告人庄某退出全 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Shanxi Yaodu Rural Commercial Bank highlights the consequences of illegal loan issuance, resulting in the conviction of two bank employees for unlawfully issuing a loan of 30 million yuan [2][3][4]. Group 1: Case Details - The original loan of 30 million yuan was issued in June 2013 to a high school represented by Liu, with the bank's customer manager Gao failing to conduct proper due diligence [3]. - The bank's internal investigation revealed that the borrower had repaid 4 million yuan of the principal, leaving 26 million yuan unpaid at the time of the incident, which caused significant losses to the financial institution [3][4]. - Both Liu and Gao were sentenced to two years in prison with a two-year probation and fined 20,000 yuan each for their roles in the illegal loan issuance [2][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Sentencing - The Shanxi Yaodu Rural Commercial Bank attempted to mitigate the situation by requesting leniency for the two employees, citing their good behavior and the lack of financial loss [4][5]. - The court, however, determined that the amount involved was particularly large, and thus, the actions of Liu and Gao could not be classified as minor offenses [4][5]. - The court's decision to grant probation was influenced by the fact that the borrower had repaid the entire loan principal, and the bank's request for leniency was considered in the sentencing process [5][6]. Group 3: Implications for Financial Institutions - The case underscores the importance of compliance with lending regulations and the potential legal repercussions for bank employees who fail to adhere to due diligence protocols [3][4]. - Legal experts suggest that financial institutions should maintain open communication with legal representatives during such cases to seek resolutions and potentially mitigate penalties [5][6]. - The outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the role of financial institutions in the sentencing of their employees [5][6].

中央纪委国家监委网站 程威 特邀嘉宾 张皓宇 重庆市荣昌区纪委常委 杨一龙 中国农业银行重庆开州支行党委委员、纪委书记 龙琎琎 重庆市铜梁区人民检察院四级高级检察官 杨 建 重庆市铜梁区人民法院四级高级法官 编者按 本案中，甲多次以民间借贷名义收取"利息"，为何有的认定为违纪，有的认定构成受贿犯罪？有观点认 为，甲审核同意发放贷款3670万元仅仅是发放贷款的一个环节，因此不构成违法发放贷款罪，如何看待 该观点？对甲收受贿赂并违法发放贷款的行为，是应择一重罪处罚，还是按受贿罪和违法发放贷款罪数 罪并罚？我们特邀相关单位工作人员予以解析。 基本案情： 甲，曾任某国有商业银行A市B区支行党委委员、副行长，A市C区支行党委委员、副行长，A市D区支 行党委委员等职务。 违反廉洁纪律。2017年11月至2019年1月，甲在担任A市C区支行党委委员、副行长期间，筹集100万元 出借给A市某林业发展公司（该公司为A市C区支行信贷客户，在此期间，该公司存在资金需求，同期 向其他民事主体有多笔借款，且多笔借款所支付的月利率大于或等于3%），并按3%的月利率收取利 息。2019年1月，甲收回本金100万元，累计收取利息45万余元。 ...