Core Viewpoint - The rise of illegal financial intermediaries posing as legitimate service providers has become a significant threat to financial consumers, necessitating urgent action to protect consumer rights and maintain financial order [1][2]. Group 1: Illegal Financial Activities - Illegal financial intermediaries are engaging in fraudulent activities under the guise of services like "unsecured loans," "debt relief," and "credit repair," often charging high fees and collecting personal information for profit [1][2]. - Common scams include loan intermediary fraud, where consumers are lured with promises of low rates and quick funding, only to be asked for upfront fees and then face delays or disappearances [2][3]. - Other scams involve false claims of insurance claim assistance, credit repair, and debt evasion, where intermediaries exploit consumer trust and personal information [2][3]. Group 2: Consumer Protection Measures - Financial regulatory bodies are actively warning consumers about the dangers of illegal intermediaries and promoting awareness campaigns to safeguard financial interests [1][5]. - Consumers are advised to verify the legitimacy of financial service providers through official channels and to be cautious of unsolicited offers, especially those requiring upfront payments [4][5]. - It is crucial for consumers to read contracts carefully and understand the terms before signing, as many intermediaries use deceptive practices to entrap them [3][4].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses cases of state employees using their positions to inflate transaction processes, resulting in profits for third parties, and analyzes the legal implications of such actions [1][6]. Case Summaries Case One - A state-owned company manager, knowing that a procurement was already established, directed the company to sign a procurement agreement with a specific individual to inflate transaction costs, resulting in a commission payment that was misappropriated [2][8]. - The legal opinions diverge on whether the manager's actions constitute embezzlement or illegal profit-making for relatives, with a consensus leaning towards embezzlement due to the nature of the transaction [4][9]. Case Two - A financing platform manager, in collusion with a government official, inflated transaction processes to facilitate a payment to the official's son for minimal services rendered, despite the company having direct financing options [3][12]. - Similar to Case One, legal opinions vary, but the prevailing view is that the manager's actions constitute bribery and embezzlement due to the intent to benefit a third party while misusing public funds [11][14]. Legal Analysis - The article emphasizes that actions taken by state employees to inflate transactions for personal gain or to benefit specific individuals can lead to serious legal consequences, including charges of embezzlement and bribery [7][11]. - The distinction between embezzlement and illegal profit-making for relatives is crucial, as the former involves direct misappropriation of public funds, while the latter pertains to the improper allocation of business opportunities [10][14].