Core Viewpoint - The company, Daheng Equipment (02153.HK), has entered into a procurement agreement with China National Nuclear Corporation for the purchase of 76 tower cranes and related components for a total consideration of approximately RMB 53.17 million [1] Group 1 - The procurement agreement is set to be executed on August 15, 2025 [1] - The buyer in this transaction is Huaxing Daheng, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company [1] - The assets being procured include both the tower cranes and their associated parts [1]

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].