1月5日，泰禾集团发布公告称，针对公司董事长兼总经理黄其森的留置措施已解除，黄其森正常履行公司董事长兼总经理的职责，公司生产经营情况正 常。 去年8月时，泰禾集团曾披露，黄其森因涉嫌违法，被辽宁省新民市监察委员会实施留置措施。彼时，该集团存在的资产被冻结、查封等情况，会对公司 运营产生一定影响。除此之外，公司按原组织架构和管理体系正常运转。 据中央纪委国家监委2022年5月消息，黄曦涉嫌严重违纪违法，正接受中央纪委国家监委驻建设银行纪检监察组纪律审查和吉林省监察委员会监察调查。 同年11月，黄曦被开除党籍，涉嫌犯罪问题被移送检察机关。 值得注意的是，这已是黄其森二度出现类似风波、又重返岗位。 早在2022年3月时，泰禾集团曾披露，黄其森正协助有关机关调查。彼时市场消息显示，泰禾集团执行副总裁黄曦、副总裁林文华也被带走协助调查。 当时，在泰禾紧急召开的媒体沟通会上，管理层表示，董事长黄其森是协助调查，不是因为泰禾经营层面的问题，与企业经营本身没有关系。同时称，近 年来黄其森直接参与公司日常经营较少，更多关注战略和重大决策。 在上一轮"协助调查"风波中，黄其森同样一度回归。2022年11月17日，泰禾集团在回应该 ...

2026.01. 05 本文字数：1835，阅读时长大约3分钟 作者 | 第一财经 孙梦凡 1月5日，泰禾集团发布公告称，针对公司董事长兼总经理黄其森的留置措施已解除，黄其森正常履 行公司董事长兼总经理的职责，公司生产经营情况正常。 去年8月时，泰禾集团曾披露，黄其森因涉嫌违法，被辽宁省新民市监察委员会实施留置措施。彼 时，该集团存在的资产被冻结、查封等情况，会对公司运营产生一定影响。除此之外，公司按原组织 架构和管理体系正常运转。 截至2022年3月13日，黄其森实际控制公司以"安家费""奖金""工资"等名义给予了黄曦财物共计4268 万余元，另有"薪酬"1011万余元未支付。最终，法院以受贿罪判处黄曦有期徒刑十四年，并处罚金 人民币四百万元，依法追缴犯罪所得及收益。黄曦提出上诉后，吉林省高级人民法院裁定驳回上诉， 维持原判。 目前，已经退市的泰禾集团，还在债务压力的泥潭中挣扎。2025年11月24日，泰禾集团披露称，集 团及其并表公司逾期的有息总负债本金余额为698.56亿元，其中非标债务已逾期贷款本金余额 481.08亿元，境内公司债本金余额104.16亿元，境外美元债本金余额113.32亿元。 值得注 ...

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have jointly released typical cases of punishing financial sector job-related crimes, exposing a corruption case in the commercial banking sector involving a bank president [1][2] - The case involves Wu, a former president of a state-owned bank, who illegally approved a loan of 500 million yuan at an interest rate of 8% to a company, later receiving additional benefits disguised as consulting fees [1][2] - Wu was found guilty of multiple crimes, including bribery, embezzlement, illegal loan issuance, and issuing financial certificates unlawfully, leading to severe penalties including a death sentence with a two-year reprieve [3] Summary by Sections Case Details - Wu conspired with a company manager to issue a 500 million yuan loan, receiving a fixed return of 9.5% in addition to the normal interest [1] - The total bribe received by Wu exceeded 1.32 billion yuan, and he misappropriated 5.08 billion yuan from the bank for personal use or to lend to others for profit [2] Legal Proceedings - The court found Wu's actions to be particularly egregious, resulting in significant losses to the state and the public [3] - Wu was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve, along with life imprisonment after the reprieve, and was stripped of all personal property [3] Background Information - Wu, born in 1968, held various positions in the banking sector before becoming the president of Wenzhou Bank [4]

2019年8月22日晚间，中共温州市纪委、市监察委曾公告，温州银行党委委员、副董事长、行长吴华接受纪律审查和监察调查。2020年5月，浙江省纪委监 委网站发布消息，吴华受到开除党籍、开除公职处分。 图片来源：温州市中级人民法院 每经编辑｜金冥羽 潘海福 11月28日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例。其中，一则案例披露温州银行原行长吴华金融腐败案的细节始 末。 根据公开简历，吴华出生于1968年，浙江云和人，研究生学历，1990年8月参加工作，曾在中国人民银行云和县支行工作六年，历任中国人民银行云和县 支行会计科科员、副科长。1996年起在中国交通银行温州分行工作，直到2009年，大约在交行工作了13年，历任办公室秘书科科长、办公室副主任，黎明 支行行长、温州分行副行长，绍兴分行副行长等职。2009年12月，吴华加入温州银行，担任党委委员，2010年4月起担任温州银行行长。 温州市中级人民法院经审理认为，被告人吴某身为国家工作人员，利用职务上的便利，非法收受他人财物，为他人谋取利益，数额特别巨大，使国家和人 民利益遭受特别重大损失，其行为构成受贿罪；利用职务上的便利，挪用本 ...

记者丨边万莉 被告人吴某身为国家工作人员，利用职务上的便利，非法收受他人财物，为他人谋取利益，数额特别巨 大，使国家和人民利益遭受特别重大损失，其行为构成受贿罪；利用职务上的便利，挪用本单位资金归 个人使用或出借给他人，进行营利活动，情节严重，其行为构成挪用公款罪；身为银行工作人员，违反 国家规定发放贷款，数额特别巨大，造成特别重大损失，其行为构成违法发放贷款罪；违反规定，伙同 他人出具其他保函，情节特别严重，其行为构成违规出具金融票证罪。 编辑丨肖嘉 11月28日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例。其中，一则 案例披露温州银行原行长吴华金融腐败案的细节始末。 吴华出生于1968年，研究生学历，先后任职于中国人民银行云和县支行、交通银行温州分行及绍兴分 行。2009年，吴华加入温州银行，任温州银行党委委员，后担任温州银行行长、副董事长。2019年8 月，温州市纪委监委公告，温州银行党委委员、副董事长、行长吴华涉嫌严重违纪违法，接受纪律审查 和监察调查。2020年5月，浙江省纪委监委网站发布消息，吴华受到开除党籍、开除公职处分。 据此次典型案例披露，2016年，吴某伙同某公司 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Wu Hua, former president of Wenzhou Bank, highlights severe corruption within the banking sector, emphasizing the need for strict legal enforcement against financial crimes to protect national and public interests [4][5]. Summary by Sections Case Background - Wu Hua, born in 1968, held various positions in banking before becoming the president and vice chairman of Wenzhou Bank in 2009. He was investigated for serious violations in August 2019 and expelled from the party and public office in May 2020 [1]. Corruption Details - In 2016, Wu colluded with a company manager to issue a 500 million yuan guarantee loan, receiving benefits in return. In 2017, he approved another loan of 500 million yuan at an 8% interest rate [1][2]. - The company later agreed to pay Wu a fixed return of 9.5% on the loan, totaling over 142 million yuan disguised as consulting fees [2]. - Wu was found to have misappropriated over 508 million yuan for personal use and facilitated unauthorized loans totaling 501 million yuan, resulting in significant losses for Wenzhou Bank [2][3]. Legal Proceedings - In December 2022, Wu was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve for bribery, along with additional sentences for embezzlement and illegal loan issuance, totaling 29 years in prison [3]. - The Zhejiang Provincial High Court upheld the original ruling, confirming the severity of Wu's actions and the legal consequences [3]. Implications for the Banking Sector - The case serves as a critical example of the risks posed by corrupt practices in banking, where key decision-makers can exploit their positions, leading to substantial financial losses and damage to the financial ecosystem [4][5]. - The judicial response underscores a commitment to combating corruption in the banking industry, reinforcing the importance of integrity and accountability among financial leaders [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a significant case of financial corruption involving Wu Hua, the former president of Wenzhou Bank, emphasizing the judicial system's commitment to combating corruption in the banking sector and maintaining financial security [4]. Summary by Sections Case Background - Wu Hua, born in 1968, held various positions in banking before becoming the president and vice-chairman of Wenzhou Bank in 2009. He was investigated for serious violations in August 2019 and expelled from the party and public office in May 2020 [1]. Corruption Details - In 2016, Wu colluded with a company manager to issue a 500 million yuan guarantee loan, receiving benefits in return. In 2017, he approved another loan of 500 million yuan at an 8% interest rate [1][2]. - The company later agreed to pay Wu an additional fixed return of 9.5% on the loan, totaling over 142 million yuan disguised as consulting fees [2]. - Wu was found to have misappropriated over 508 million yuan for personal use and facilitated unauthorized loans totaling 501 million yuan, resulting in significant losses for Wenzhou Bank [2][3]. Legal Proceedings - In December 2022, Wu was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve for bribery, along with additional prison terms for embezzlement and illegal loan issuance, with a total of 1.32 billion yuan in bribes received [3][4]. - The Zhejiang Provincial High Court upheld the original ruling, reinforcing the severity of Wu's actions and the judicial system's stance against corruption in the banking sector [4]. Implications for the Banking Sector - The case serves as a critical example of the risks posed by corrupt practices within commercial banks, highlighting the need for stringent oversight and accountability among key decision-makers in the financial industry [4].

"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]