非法收受财物1.47亿余元 徐佐被判无期徒刑 中新社北京12月12日电 (记者 张素)记者从中国最高人民法院获悉，12月12日，辽宁省沈阳市中级人民 法院一审公开宣判中国中信集团有限公司原党委委员、副总经理徐佐受贿、非法经营同类营业案。 法院对被告人徐佐以受贿罪判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产；以非法经营同 类营业罪判处有期徒刑七年，并处罚金人民币一千万元，决定执行无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处 没收个人全部财产。对徐佐犯罪所得财物及孳息依法予以追缴，上缴国库。 本文为转载内容，授权事宜请联系原著作权人 中新经纬版权所有，未经书面授权，任何单位及个人不得转载、摘编或以其它方式使用。 关注中新经纬微信公众号(微信搜索"中新经纬"或"jwview")，看更多精彩财经资讯。 公开资料显示，徐佐生于1965年10月，湖北大悟人。2024年6月，官方通报其任上被查。同年12月，官 方通报其被开除党籍和公职。他被指大搞"靠企吃企"，违规经营任职企业同类营业，谋取巨额非法利 益，以及"污染任职企业政治生态"等。 经审理查明，1999年至2024年，被告人徐佐利用担任中信戴卡股份有限公司副总经理、总经理 ...

经审理查明：1999年至2024年，被告人徐佐利用担任中信戴卡股份有限公司副总经理、总经理、党委书 记、副董事长、董事长，中国中信集团有限公司党委委员、副总经理等职务上的便利，为有关人员在承接 项目、业务合作等方面谋取利益，非法收受财物共计折合人民币1.47亿余元。2012年至2024年，徐佐利 用担任中信戴卡股份有限公司总经理、副董事长、董事长的职务便利，经营与所任职公司同类的营业，获 利特别巨大。 违法和不良信息举报电话：0755-83514034 邮箱：bwb@stcn.com 2025年12月12日，辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院一审公开宣判中国中信集团有限公司原党委委员、副总经 理徐佐受贿、非法经营同类营业案，对被告人徐佐以受贿罪判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收 个人全部财产；以非法经营同类营业罪判处有期徒刑七年，并处罚金人民币一千万元，决定执行无期徒 刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。对徐佐犯罪所得财物及孳息依法予以追缴，上缴国库。 沈阳市中级人民法院认为，被告人徐佐的行为构成受贿罪、非法经营同类营业罪。其受贿数额特别巨大， 并使国家和人民利益遭受特别重大损失；非法经营同类营业，获取非 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses whether Zhang, a senior manager of a state-owned company, can be charged with illegal operation of similar businesses despite the fact that the business he engaged in was not within the registered scope of the company [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Framework - According to Article 165 of the Criminal Law, senior management of state-owned companies who exploit their position for personal gain in similar businesses can be charged with illegal operation of similar businesses [1]. - There are differing opinions on whether the registered business scope should determine the legality of Zhang's actions, with one view suggesting that since the coal trading was not registered, it does not constitute competition [2]. - The opposing view argues that "similar businesses" should be defined by substance rather than registration, and Zhang's actions fall under illegal operation due to his position and the significant profits gained [2][3]. Group 2: Judicial Interpretation - Judicial practice supports the notion that businesses outside the registered scope can still be considered "similar businesses" if they affect competition and opportunities [4]. - The determination of whether Zhang's actions constitute illegal operation can be analyzed through two lenses: whether the business is similar and whether it creates competition or conflict of interest with A Company [4]. - Zhang's actions directly impacted A Company's interests by competing for coal trading opportunities, thus qualifying as illegal operation under criminal law [4]. Group 3: Conclusion on Zhang's Actions - Zhang's behavior is characterized as a misuse of his position as a senior manager, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty and engaging in unfair competition [5]. - The conclusion drawn is that Zhang's actions, which involved leveraging his position to gain substantial illegal profits, should be classified as illegal operation of similar businesses [5].

Core Viewpoint - The case represents the first instance of criminal prosecution against corruption in private enterprises under the new legal framework aimed at protecting the private economy in Shanghai, highlighting the equal treatment of private and state-owned enterprise executives in legal matters [1][2][3] Group 1: Case Details - The defendant, Zheng, was the general manager of a lighting company and established a competing company while misappropriating client orders, leading to significant financial losses for the original company [1][2] - Zheng's actions resulted in over 37 million yuan in sales for the new company and caused the original company to lose more than 2 million yuan in operating profits [1][2] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The Shanghai Jiading District People's Procuratorate charged Zheng with illegal operation of similar businesses, and he voluntarily confessed to his crimes [2] - The court sentenced Zheng to 10 months in prison and a fine of 300,000 yuan, taking into account his confession and compensation for the losses incurred by the original company [2] Group 3: Legal Implications - The case illustrates the application of the Private Economy Promotion Law and the guidelines issued by the Supreme People's Court, ensuring equal legal treatment for executives of different ownership structures [2][3] - The court emphasized the need for clear legal standards in cases involving corruption in private enterprises, ensuring that legitimate market behaviors are not wrongly criminalized [3][4] Group 4: Impact on Private Enterprises - The ruling aims to protect the interests of private enterprises and encourages compliance with laws and regulations among management personnel [4] - The case sets a precedent for the criminal prosecution of high-level executives in private companies, reinforcing the legal framework that governs corporate conduct [3][4]

Core Points - The case involves a trust loan of 15.5 billion yuan provided by Zhongrong International Trust Co., Ltd. to Shanxi Transportation Investment Group, facilitated by Minsheng Bank's Taiyuan branch, with allegations of bribery and money laundering [2][4][5] - The court has gone through multiple rounds of trials, with the latest ruling resulting in prison sentences for the involved parties, including Liu Yang receiving 11 years for bribery [2][13][14] Group 1: Case Background - In 2013, Shanxi Provincial Transportation Department initiated a financing project through Shanxi Transportation Investment Group, using Minsheng Bank for loans [4] - Liu Yang, the general manager of Minsheng Bank's Taiyuan branch investment banking department, facilitated the introduction of trust loans totaling 23.47 billion yuan [4] - Zhongrong Trust was involved in setting up 12 trust products to provide 15.5 billion yuan in loans to Shanxi Transportation Investment Group [4] Group 2: Allegations and Charges - Liu Yang allegedly received 85.5 million yuan as a "consulting service fee," which prosecutors claim was a bribe [2][5] - The prosecution accused Liu Yang of non-state staff bribery, while Gai Qijun was charged with money laundering, and Zhou Bailin with bribery [8][9] - Liu Yang argued that the funds were legitimate service fees, not bribes, and claimed the bank's role was as an intermediary [3][8] Group 3: Judicial Proceedings - The case has undergone six rounds of trials, with the latest ruling affirming the sentences for Liu Yang (11 years), Gai Qijun (5 years and 6 months), and Zhou Bailin (3 years and 7 months) [2][13][14] - The court's decisions have been challenged multiple times, with Liu Yang planning to apply for a retrial based on his defense that the funds were not illegal [3][15] - The latest ruling increased Liu Yang's sentence by 2 years compared to the initial judgment [13]

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the investigation and prosecution of Shi for bribery and illegal business operations, highlighting the misuse of public office for personal gain and the legal implications of such actions [5][8][23]. Group 1: Case Background - Shi held multiple positions in a state-owned real estate development company, utilizing his role to facilitate business for others while receiving bribes totaling over 2.44 million yuan [5][23]. - A specific incident involved Shi receiving a property worth 793,000 yuan as a bribe, which was later sold by his son for 2.7 million yuan, raising questions about the proper assessment of the bribe amount [9][11]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in January 2022, leading to Shi's detention and subsequent charges of bribery and illegal business operations [7][8]. - In March 2023, the court sentenced Shi to six years in prison and imposed fines totaling 550,000 yuan for his crimes, which included both bribery and illegal business activities [8][24]. Group 3: Legal Interpretations - The court determined that the bribe amount should be based on the market value of the property at the time of receipt, rather than the sale price, establishing a precedent for similar cases [11][12]. - The actions of Shi and his co-conspirators were classified as illegal business operations, as they exploited their positions to divert projects from the state-owned company to a private entity, resulting in significant illegal profits [12][13][20]. Group 4: Sentencing Considerations - The court considered mitigating factors such as Shi's confession and cooperation with the investigation, which influenced the final sentencing decision [22][24]. - The ruling emphasized the importance of accountability for public officials and the legal consequences of corruption within state-owned enterprises [23][24].