A pair of lovers are both public officials. The woman asks everywhere for the man's promotion, and the man gets promoted and raises his salary smoothly;
During the period when the two were lovers, the man gave the woman a total of more than 6 million yuan, but the more than 6 million yuan did not form a clear correspondence with the above-mentioned promotion and accountability storm, that is, there was no complete chain of evidence.Prove how much money the man gave the woman in order to get a promotion; how much money he gave the woman in order to avoid being held accountable.
So is the more than 6 million yuan a bribe or a gift from a lover?Should it be considered bribery or bribery?
On November 9 and November 12, the Beijing Court Judgment Information Network successively published the first-instance criminal judgment of Wang Xin for offering bribes, the second-instance criminal judgment for Wang Xin's introduction of bribery, and the second-instance criminal judgment for Wang Xia's acceptance of bribes.These three judgments reveal that the above-mentioned Wang Xin and Wang Xia are both practitioners in the financial industry. Wang Xin was formerly the president of the Jinan Branch of China Everbright Bank, and Wang Xia was formerly the deputy director of the Second Banking Management Department of Central Huijin Investment Co., Ltd.
Wang Xin was born on March 28, 1968 in Taiyuan, Shanxi.In 2007, when he was the assistant to the president of Taiyuan Branch of China Everbright Bank, he met Wang Xia, who was born in June 1970.In 2009, the two confirmed their relationship as lovers, and both parties agreed to get married after going through the divorce procedures respectively.
Afterwards, the two bought a wedding room and lived together. Wang Xin handed over her bank card to Wang Xia, and transferred her wages, bonuses and other income into this bank card. The two also prepared expenses for their children to study abroad.
Wang Xia divorced her ex-husband first as agreed.Under Wang Xia's pressure, Wang Xin sued for divorce twice in 2011 and April 2012, but both ended in withdrawal.In June 2012, Wang Xin wrote a letter of guarantee, promising to marry Wang Xia as soon as possible.But Wang Xia believed that Wang Xin would not divorce, she just wanted to use her position to help him get promoted and keep the position of president. In October 2012, the two broke up and ended their lover relationship.
During their three-year lover relationship, Wang Xia received 6.095 million yuan from Wang Xin.
The prosecution charged that the 6.095 million yuan included the following four cases.
The first case: From the end of 2009 to the beginning of 2010, Wang Xin entrusted Wang Xia to seek illegitimate interests in her job promotion. Later, Wang Xia took advantage of her position as the director of the Everbright Equity Management Division of the General Affairs Department of Huijin Company and the director of Everbright Bank.Facilitating conditions, they asked Tang, the secretary of the China Everbright Bank Committee and chairman of China Everbright Bank, and Lin, the deputy secretary of the China Everbright Bank Committee and secretary of the Disciplinary Committee, to seek illegitimate benefits for Wang Xin in his job promotion.During this period, Wang Xin gave Wang Xia several times a total of 1.895 million yuan.
The second case: In September 2010, Wang Xin borrowed 1.2 million yuan from a friend and remitted it to the bank card under her name held by Wang Xia.At Wang Xin's request, Wang Xia remitted the money to Wang Xia's mother's account and withdrew the cash.
The third occurred after the Qilu incident.
From February 2009 to November 2010, a sub-branch of China Everbright Bank Jinan Branch violated regulations in the process of handling two transactions, resulting in 1.67 billion yuan of capital loss risk and case risk (hereinafter referred to as the Qilu incident).Wang Xin, who was then deputy secretary of the Jinan Branch Committee of the China Everbright Bank (in charge of the work), faced the risk of being held accountable.Wang Xin then asked Wang Xia to intercede with Tang, Lin, and Sun, director of the joint-stock banking department of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.Wang Xia helped Wang Xin intercede with the above-mentioned personnel, and informed Wang Xin in real time of the investigation and handling information of the Qilu incident that she had learned from participating in relevant meetings.
In August 2011, Wang Xin transferred 300,000 yuan to Wang Xia; in October of the same year, Wang Xin transferred 400,000 yuan to Wang Xia.
In January 2012, Wang Xin was notified and criticized for the Qilu incident, and was punished by deducting 30,000 yuan from his performance salary.
The fourth happened one month before the two broke up, that is, in September 2012, Wang Xin borrowed 2.3 million yuan from others and transferred it to Wang Xia.
The prosecution pointed out that the above four money transactions constituted the crime of offering bribes and accepting bribes.
However, the court of first instance and the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court only determined that the first money exchange between the two, that is, the 1.895 million yuan Wang Xin promoted to Wang Xia in order to seek a job, belonged to Wang Xin's bribery and Wang Xia's acceptance of bribes.The 4.2 million yuan in the last three times did not constitute bribery or bribery.
Regarding the second case, Wang Xia confessed that because Wang Xin's son went abroad, Wang Xin also had to reserve expenses for her daughter to go abroad, so she gave the 1.2 million yuan.The court of first instance held that: during the period when Wang Xin gave Wang Xia 1.2 million yuan, she did not ask Wang Xia for any entrustment, nor did Wang Xia take advantage of her position to seek benefits for Wang Xin.And if it cannot be ruled out that the money was negotiated by the two for the future use of Wang Xia's daughter to study abroad, it should not be determined to constitute a crime of bribery.
Regarding the third case, the court of first instance held that: in December 2010, when the public security organs were investigating related cases, the Qilu incident broke out.Wang Xin asked Wang Xia to intercede with the relevant leaders to avoid or be held accountable lightly, and Wang Xia then helped Wang Xin intercede with the above-mentioned personnel.In January 2012, Wang Xin was notified and criticized for the Qilu incident, and was punished by deducting 30,000 yuan from his performance salary.
During this period, Wang Xin gave Wang 300,000 yuan in August 2011 and 400,000 yuan in October 2011.In this case, the entrusted matter and the act of giving property overlapped to a certain extent in terms of time, but the evidence in the case proved that Wang Xia did not subjectively believe that the above 700,000 yuan was for helping Wang Xin to be lightly held accountable in the Qilu incidentIn other words, Wang Xia lacked the subjective intention of accepting Wang Xin's bribes, and there was also no evidence of the correspondence between the two objectively.
Regarding the fourth case, the court of first instance held that: when Wang Xin gave Wang Xia 2.3 million yuan, Wang Xin did not make any entrustment to Wang, nor did Wang Xia take advantage of her position to seek benefits for Wang Xin.During the investigation stage, Wang Xia said that she accepted the money from Wang Xin because the two were about to break up, and the breakup fee that Wang Xin gave her was also reasonable to some extent.
In a nutshell, the court of first instance held that the second, third, and fourth cases belonged to gifts from Wang Xin and Wang Xia's lovers, not bribes.
In addition to the above-mentioned 6.095 million yuan, the prosecution also accused Wang Xin of accepting 200,000 yuan in gratitude from Ma for introducing Wang Xia. Wang Xin was suspected of introducing bribery crimes, and Wang Xia was suspected of accepting bribes.
According to regulations, China Everbright Bank evaluates the annual work of KPMG every year, and decides whether to re-employ after deliberation by the management and the board of directors based on the evaluation results.In 2007, Wang Xia joined China Everbright Bank as a director sent by Huijin. Song, a partner of KPMG, met Wang Xia when she regularly reported audit work to the directors.
In 2011, in order to help his friend and relative of Ma, Wang Xin entered KPMG accounting firm and introduced Ma to ask Wang Xia for entrustment.Wang Xia then greeted Song and arranged for Ma's relatives to work in KPMG accounting firm. For this, Ma gave Wang Xia 200,000 yuan.
However, the court of first instance did not recognize the above-mentioned 200,000 yuan thank you fee.
The court of first instance held that Wang Xia neither had the authority to be in charge of KPMG’s recruitment of personnel, nor had any job constraints or affiliation with KPMG’s Song, and Song did not have the status of a national employee..Wang Xia does not have the authority to arrange for the relatives of the client to work in KPMG accounting firm.
On December 29 last year, the court of first instance made judgments on the Wang Xin case and the Wang Xia case respectively.
In the case of Wang Xin, the court of first instance held that: Wang Xin took advantage of the behavior of a state official in his position to seek illegitimate benefits and bribed the state employee 1.895 million yuan for this. His behavior constituted the crime of offering bribes and should be punished according to law.Although Wang Xin has serious circumstances to seek promotion through bribery, in view of the specific circumstances of this case, the circumstances of the crime of bribery committed by the defendant Wang Xin are minor, and he can truthfully confess the crime after arriving at the case, so he is exempted from criminal punishment according to law..Therefore, it was judged that Wang Xin was guilty of offering bribes and exempted from criminal punishment.
In the case of Wang Xia, the court of first instance held that: as a national employee, Wang Xia took advantage of the convenience formed by her authority or status to seek illegitimate benefits for others through the behavior of other state employees. The amount was huge, and her behavior constituted aThe crime of accepting bribes should be punished according to law.In view of the specific circumstances of this case, and comprehensively considering that Wang Xia had the aggravating circumstances of accepting bribes for others to seek promotion, and her family members returned all the stolen money on her behalf, and that Wang Xia pleaded guilty and repented in court, and truthfully confessed the crimes committed, the mitigating circumstances, also considering that the announcement of probation has no major adverse impact on the community where Wang Xia lives, Wang Xia will be given a lighter punishment and probation shall be applied according to law.Therefore, Wang Xia was convicted of accepting bribes, sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for three years, and fined RMB 200,000.
After the first-instance verdict, the Second Branch of the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate filed a protest, arguing that the first-instance verdict made mistakes in ascertaining the facts, wrongly applying the law, and the sentencing was obviously abnormally light.
Regarding Wang Xia’s acceptance of Wang Xin’s 6.095 million yuan, the Second Branch of the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate pointed out that the fact that Wang Xin gave Wang Xia 4.2 million yuan in money (that is, the last three money transactions) was not recognized in the first-instance judgment was an error in determining the facts.Wang Xin and Wang Xia did have a lover relationship, but when Wang Xin already had a bank card for Wang Xia to use, they still borrowed large sums of money from customers and friends to Wang Xia many times; Wang Xin sued for divorce twice.It ended with the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the properties of the two were not mixed;
The way Wang Xin gave Wang Xia money is also significantly different from other specific related parties. The existence of lover relationship does not exclude the existence of power-money transaction, which belongs to the causal relationship of multiple causes and one effect.
Regarding Wang Xia’s acceptance of Ma’s 200,000 yuan thank-you fee, the Second Branch of the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate proposed: According to the regulations, after deliberation by the management and the board of directors, China Everbright Bank needs to re-employ the current accounting firm, KPMG, every year. At the same time,The accounting firm needs to regularly report the work situation to the equity directors.This is how Wang Xia and Song, a partner of KPMG, got acquainted. It is precisely because of Wang Xia's authority that Song, at Wang Xia's request, provided help for Ma's relatives to join the company.Therefore, Wang Xia's act of accepting 200,000 yuan from Ma met the elements of the crime of accepting bribes; Wang Xin's introduction of Wang Xia's acceptance of money from Ma met the elements of the crime of introducing bribes.
The court of second instance and the Beijing Higher People's Court adopted the prosecutor's protest opinion on the 200,000 yuan thank you fee, and held that Wang Xia's acceptance of 200,000 yuan from Ma constituted the crime of accepting bribes, and Wang Xin constituted the crime of introducing bribes.
However, regarding Wang Xia’s acceptance of Wang Xin’s 6.095 million yuan, the second-instance court pointed out that, including the first case, the 1.895 million yuan that Wang Xin promoted to Wang Xia in order to seek a job, the four cases, 6.095 million yuan, should not be identified as Wang Xia’s bribery, Wang Xin’sXin bribes for the following reasons:
First of all, the essence of the crime of accepting bribes is the transaction of power and money between different stakeholders, and the protection of the legal interests of the crime of accepting bribes is the non-buyability of the official behavior of the state staff.Therefore, without examining whether the above-mentioned legal interests have been violated, it cannot be determined as a crime of accepting bribes just by receiving money from state employees.
Secondly, whether it is receiving money beforehand or afterward, it does not affect the nature of the transaction of power and money in the crime of bribery, and there is no substantial difference between the two.From the perspective of the nature of the property, both are improper rewards for the duty behavior of state functionaries, and the property and duty behavior have formed a consideration relationship.Therefore, it is not rigorous, necessary, or even difficult to try to judge the corresponding relationship between the behavior of receiving money and the entrusted items in the specific order of occurrence time.
Thirdly, judging from the objective facts of this case, during the three-year period from August 2009 to October 2012, Wang Xia and Wang Xin went from dating, agreeing to divorce, living together after buying a marriage house, and preparing for their children to go abroad.From studying abroad expenses until the final breakup, apart from the large amount of funds involved in the case that had already been charged, Wang Xin transferred a total of 988,600 yuan into the two bank cards that Wang Xin handed over to Wang Xia for use. The procuratorate did not charge for this.If it is believed that the relationship between lovers does not exclude the existence of power-for-money transactions, this part of the amount should be included in the amount of bribes, indicating that the procuratorate believes that although this part of the amount is a gift between lovers, it is not a power-for-money transaction;
If it is necessary to examine whether there is a corresponding profit-seeking matter for each sum of money and determine the amount of bribes based on this, there will be a lack of uniform objective standards due to differences in the subjective judgments of the examiners.This just shows that the corresponding relationship between Wang Xia's behavior of receiving money and Wang Xin's entrusted matters is not clear and clear, and it cannot be ruled out that the two live together for the purpose of marriage. Reasonable doubts.If Wang Xia and Wang Xin become husband and wife in the end, the property exchanges between the two parties will become the common property of the two, and the two will become a real community of interests, which can be regarded as one person to the outside world, and there will be no transaction of power and money.
Regarding the real reason why Wang Xia received money from Wang Xin, based on the fact that the existing evidence is not enough to rule out reasonable doubts, a unique conclusion has been drawn. In fact, both the first-instance judgment and the procuratorate have adopted contradictory standards..
In the end, because Wang Xia first divorced her ex-husband according to the agreement, Wang Xin sued for divorce twice under the pressure of Wang Xia. Until June 2012, Wang Xin still promised to marry Wang Xia as soon as possible in the letter of guarantee. The two had a long-term relationship.In the case of cohabitation and confusion of personal property, it should be considered that the two have a plan and emotional basis for reorganizing the family.Under such circumstances, it is human nature for one lover to offer advice, inform, and intercede with relevant leaders for the other in terms of career promotion and accountability.
Subjectively, Wang Xia and Wang Xin did not regard it as a transaction, but a voluntary contribution driven by emotional factors, so it does not belong to the bribery of the integrity of the state staff's duty behavior.
The above-mentioned reasons of the court of second instance, in short, it believes that the key to determining whether it constitutes a crime of accepting bribes lies in whether it constitutes a bribe of the integrity of the official duties of the state staff, and it cannot be determined as bribery just because the state staff receives money.crime.Although Wang Xia accepted Wang Xin's money, the two were lovers, lived together for a long time, had a plan to reorganize the family and had a relationship foundation, personal property was mixed, and the correspondence between Wang Xia's behavior of accepting money and Wang Xin's entrusted mattersThe relationship is not clear and definite.
On November 1, the court of second instance made final judgments on the Wang Xin case and the Wang Xia case respectively.
In the case of Wang Xin, the court of second instance held that: Wang Xin introduced individuals to bribe 200,000 yuan to state officials, which was a serious case and should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention according to law.The court of first instance did not ascertain the fact that Wang Xin introduced bribes, which was a qualitative error and should be corrected.However, considering that his role in introducing bribes is not prominent, he did not actually participate in the transfer of bribes, and he can truthfully confess his crimes after appearing in the case, according to Article 37 of the Criminal Law, the circumstances of the crime can be considered minor.In the end, Wang Xin was found guilty of introducing bribery and exempted from criminal punishment.
In the case of Wang Xia, the court of second instance held that: Wang Xia accepted a bribe of 200,000 yuan, just in line with the huge starting point of the crime of accepting bribes in the judicial interpretation, and should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and a fine of not less than 200,000 yuan but not more than 400,000 yuanOr confiscate property.In view of the fact that she truthfully confessed her crimes, sincerely repented, actively returned the stolen goods before filing a public prosecution, and announced that the suspended sentence had no major adverse effects on the community where she lived, Wang Xia was found guilty of accepting bribes and sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for three years, and finedRMB two hundred thousand.
