"两高"发布案例时更明确，各级法院、检察院要始终保持惩治腐败犯罪的高压态势，加大对金融领域职 务犯罪的惩治力度，强化系统施治、标本兼治，在铲除金融腐败滋生土壤和条件上持续发力。(完) 来源：中国新闻网 中国"两高"发布案例 加大力度惩治金融领域职务犯罪 中新社北京11月28日电 (记者 张素)被告人刘某受贿1.5亿余元(人民币，下同)，利用影响力受贿3700万 余元，造成巨额贷款无法收回。被告人吴某系某国有出资银行行长，触犯多个罪名。两案被告人均被依 法判处死缓，终身监禁。 中国最高人民法院、最高人民检察院28日联合发布依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例。其中，"刘某 受贿、利用影响力受贿案""吴某受贿、挪用公款、违法发放贷款、违规出具金融票证案"彰显司法机关 依法从严惩治金融领域职务犯罪的鲜明立场。 近年来，各地法院、检察院充分发挥职能作用，进一步巩固从严整治金融领域腐败犯罪的成果。本批案 例既有金融监管领域腐败案件，也有银行、信托等领域职务犯罪案件。 这批案例特点还在于司法机关精准惩治新型隐性腐败。如在"黄某受贿案"中，被告人以加入某公司获 取"劳动报酬"的方式收受贿赂，是新型受贿政商"旋转门"的典型表现形 ...

二是精准惩治新型隐性腐败。黄某受贿案，被告人以加入某公司获取"劳动报酬"的方式收受贿赂，是新 型受贿政商"旋转门"的典型表现形式。李某、徐某受贿案，被告人在未实际出资的情况下，与请托 人"合作经营"公司，以分配利润的方式收受贿赂，是隐性腐败的典型表现形式。司法机关穿透新型隐性 腐败的"面纱"，依法对被告人判处刑罚，让新型腐败不"新"、隐性腐败难"隐"，精准有力予以惩处。 为充分发挥典型案例教育、警示、震慑作用，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布6件依法惩治金 融领域职务犯罪典型案例。本次发布的典型案例，具有以下三个方面特点： 本报讯(记者吴晓璐)据最高人民检察院11月28日消息，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院(以下简称"两 高")联合发布6件依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例。 三是注重多领域覆盖。本批案例既有金融监管领域腐败案件，也有银行、信托等领域职务犯罪案件，体 现了司法机关依法惩处金融各领域、各环节职务犯罪及关联犯罪的鲜明态度。 金融是国民经济的血脉，金融安全是国家安全的重要组成部分。金融领域职务犯罪不仅直接侵害职务行 为廉洁性，而且严重破坏金融秩序、危害金融安全。 一是坚持依法从严惩处。刘某受贿、利用 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have jointly released six typical cases of punishing financial sector job-related crimes to enhance education, warning, and deterrence effects [1] Group 1: Characteristics of the Cases - The cases emphasize strict legal punishment, with significant amounts involved, such as Liu's bribery totaling over 1.5 billion yuan and Wu's bribery and embezzlement amounting to 2.75 billion yuan [2] - The cases target new forms of hidden corruption, exemplified by Huang's case, where bribes were disguised as "labor remuneration" [2] - The cases cover multiple sectors, including financial regulation, banking, and trust, reflecting a comprehensive approach to tackling job-related crimes across the financial industry [2] Group 2: Case Summaries - Liu's case involved receiving over 1.5 billion yuan in bribes while serving in a financial regulatory role, leading to significant loan losses [4][6] - Wu's case, as a bank president, included embezzling over 5.08 billion yuan and receiving bribes exceeding 1.32 billion yuan, resulting in severe penalties [8][10] - Huang's case highlighted the "revolving door" phenomenon, where he received 30 million yuan disguised as "settlement fees" while facilitating business for a company [13][15] - Li and Xu's case involved receiving over 1.43 billion yuan through profit-sharing arrangements without actual investment, showcasing a "cooperative operation" model of bribery [17][18] - Wang's case illustrated the use of fake financial products to embezzle over 17.7 billion yuan, alongside multiple bribery charges totaling over 1.6 billion yuan [20][21] - Zeng's case involved approving loans totaling over 2.3 billion yuan despite knowing the borrower was unqualified, resulting in significant financial losses [24][25] Group 3: Significance of the Cases - Liu's case serves as a warning against corruption in financial regulation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining financial market order and protecting public interests [7] - Wu's case highlights the critical role of bank executives in safeguarding financial security and the consequences of abusing power for personal gain [12] - Huang's case underscores the challenges of detecting and prosecuting "revolving door" corruption, reinforcing the need for vigilance in the financial sector [16] - Li and Xu's case reflects the risks associated with trust management and the necessity for strict adherence to regulatory standards to prevent financial instability [19] - Wang's case demonstrates the severe repercussions of financial misconduct, aiming to restore trust in financial institutions [23] - Zeng's case illustrates the dangers of negligence in loan approvals, stressing the need for accountability in financial decision-making [26]