I really don't want to say that the official corruption is an internal contradiction, and the common people's corruption is an external contradiction. But the reality is sad.
Paste from Tianya community
Original title: How did China take over the Lucent case?
From 2000 to 2003, Lucent invited about 65,438+0,000 China officials to the United States and other places, spending more than 65,438+0,000 million dollars. Recently, Lucent was fined $2.5 million by the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission for "bribery" in China. The document Lucent China Bribery Case published by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia provides a complete explanation of the incident and is "full of operational details". For example, "Lucent usually spends between $25,000 and $55,000 per trip 14 days". I visited "Hawaii, Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, Disney World, Universal Studios and new york". Even when it is a "pre-sales trip", it is a "after-sales trip".
What should China do about such a "real name report"? There seems to be no doubt about its authenticity. Lucent has no counterclaim, and we can't help it "argue". So, how did China take this move?
In fact, such a thing is well known in China, and it is "basically not illegal." The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of the United States only focuses on their companies. If we use this standard to ask our "internal affairs", they may paralyze a certain management level of a large taxpayer in China-1000 officials (the "cadres" of state-owned companies in China are called "officials" in American legal documents), and the amount of each bribe is more than 200,000 to 400,000 yuan. Of course, in practice, the standards of prosecution and sentencing have been extended, but they have also greatly exceeded. According to the actual "precedent" that has been continued at present, the sentencing of these 1000 officials should be between 10 and 15.
The law does not blame the public, and 1000 people were sentenced to more than 10 years in prison at one time, which is unprecedented in the history of world justice. It can be seen that it is difficult for us to take this move. As early as the spring and summer of 2004, four China officials who were also bribed by Lucent China were dismissed. Just firing, of course. This time, even the same dismissal, it is unthinkable to dismiss 1000 relevant officials and management cadres of state-owned companies.
In fact, our country often encounters such challenges. It is not uncommon for domestic officials to be implicated in international anti-corruption. It is reported that China has investigated hundreds of thousands of corruption cases related to international trade and foreign businessmen in the past decade, but the results of the cases often have to find a balance between the rule of law and national conditions. Look at the "rectification" of American justice this time, which is the "old case" three years ago (now, Lucent Company no longer exists. In 2006, Lucent of the United States and Alcatel-Lucent of France merged to form Alcatel-Lucent, knowing that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of the United States is not "letting bygones be bygones", nor does it take care of the "overseas investment environment" of domestic companies and the "falling share price of listed companies". It is conceivable that in the future, more China officials will be "implicated" because of anti-corruption abroad-tests will follow.
Because of the bribery of overseas companies, it is incalculable how much China's national interests have been damaged, and judicial justice is bound to be quite difficult. What a dilemma this is. Multinational companies originally had technical and management advantages, and even took risks to bribe China officials, which showed that the market economy in China was distorted and the legal environment needed to be improved urgently.
Of course, accepting bribes from foreign companies is not the exclusive right of China officials. In 2004, IBM Korea bribed more than a dozen officials, including the Ministry of Information and Communication, the National Tax Agency, the army and the procuratorate, in order to obtain a supply contract of more than 60 billion yuan. After the incident was exposed, all the officials who took bribes were sentenced. What should we do in the face of Lucent's bribery case in China? What's wrong with starting the judicial proceedings in China on the basis of the judicial proceedings announced by the United States, and then publishing the investigation results to the public? In addition to 1000 people suspected of taking bribes, there may be more related people, without any problems. In the final analysis, "Lucent China Bribery Case" is not only a difficult point, but also an opportunity to rebuild national dignity and increase people's confidence.
battle
On April 2, 20061day, 10, the defendant Xu Ting came to a bank ATM in Huangpu Avenue, Tianhe District, Guangzhou to withdraw money. Results After withdrawing 1000 yuan, only 1 yuan was deducted from the bank card account, and Xu Ting continued to withdraw 17 1 time, totaling 17500 yuan. Xu Ting was arrested after absconding for one year and sentenced to life imprisonment for theft.
New Express 65438+February 17 reported ATM machine failure, and only 1000 yuan was deducted from the card! Seeing this good thing, he felt that the opportunity to make a fortune came, and immediately found his friend Guo "* * * to make a fortune". Subsequently, Xiaoguo and Jamlom extracted 6.5438+0.8 million yuan and 6.5438+0.75 million yuan from it and fled. After the incident, Xiao Guo surrendered himself voluntarily and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, while Jamlom, who was arrested for absconding for one year, was recently sentenced to life imprisonment by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court for theft.
In the account 170 yuan, take175,000 yuan.
According to the accusation of the public prosecution agency, on April 2 1 day 10, 2006, the defendant Xu Ting came to the ATM of a bank in Huangpu Avenue, Tianhe District to withdraw money. As a result, after withdrawing 1 0,000 yuan, he was surprised to find that only 1 yuan was deducted from his bank card account. In ecstasy, Xu Ting continuously withdrew 54,000 yuan. That night, Xu Ting returned to her residence and told her companion Guo Anshan about it. The two immediately went to withdraw money, and then repeated the operation many times. After investigation by the police, Xu Ting successively withdrew 17 1, totaling175,000 yuan; Guo Anshan withdrew 6,543,800 yuan+0.8 million yuan. Later, each of them absconded with the stolen money.
In the same year165438+1October 7, Guo Anshan surrendered himself to the public security organ and returned the stolen goods in full, with the amount of 18000 yuan. After hearing the case, Tianhe District Court found that it constituted theft, but considering that he surrendered himself and voluntarily returned the stolen goods, he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fined 1000 yuan. Xu Ting, who absconded for one year, squandered175,000 yuan due to investment failure, and was arrested by the police at Baoji Railway Station in Shaanxi in May this year. A few days ago, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Xu Ting and his associates used secret means to steal financial institutions for the purpose of illegal possession. The amount is particularly huge, and its behavior has constituted theft. Sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.
Ordinary people use loopholes to raise more money in the bank. The premise is that the ATM of the bank itself is out of order, which is equivalent to the management error of the bank itself. The bank neither admitted its own problems, but also shifted the responsibility to others. Because of his greed, the defendant used the bank management error to raise more than100000, and was sentenced to life imprisonment; Seeing this, I can't help asking, why are those corrupt officials who usually embezzle, bribe and misappropriate millions of public funds ignorant of the law? Some things happening in this society now give people the impression that when the law falls on the heads of ordinary people, it is absolutely unambiguous to kill your uncle with a stick, while when it falls on the heads of some related people or corrupt officials, it is a mosquito biting an elephant-it is neither painful nor itchy. How can all this make ordinary people feel comfortable? Obviously.-unfair. The people of China only expect that our social laws must be observed and strictly enforced; Equal treatment, equal sentencing, and rejection of double standards.
I really don't want to say that the official corruption is an internal contradiction, and the common people's corruption is an external contradiction. But it's sad