Chapter 2 Chapter 1 Deciphering the Case of the Agricultural Development Bank of China

On November 10, 2006, as the Beijing Higher People's Court made the final judgment against Xu Fangming, the former director of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Finance, the "Agricultural Development Bank Case", which had been raging for more than two years, finally came to an end.The reason why this case is unusual is that it not only brought down two high-ranking vice-presidents of the Agricultural Development Bank, but also Xu Fangming, the promising director of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Finance. The largest commercial bribery case. This denial case, which was triggered by the audit storm, was declared over when Xu Fangming, Director of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Finance, was finally sentenced to 13 years in prison.

For the convenience of readers, before describing this intricate den case, it is necessary to list the main characters in this case as in Zhang Hui’s novels: Hu Chushou: former vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank of China, chairman of the board of supervisors of key state-owned financial institutions.Sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption. Yu Dalu: Former director of the Accounting Department of the Agricultural Development Bank of China, and vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank of China.Sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption, embezzlement, and bribery.

Xu Fangming: Former director of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Finance, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for corruption. Cai Guoan: The former general manager of Beijing Meihe Electronics Co., Ltd. was sentenced to 20 years in prison for corruption and embezzlement. Huang Junjie: former chairman of Yajie Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., was sentenced to 15 years in prison for accepting bribes. Zhao Dongming: The former deputy general manager of China Electronics Leasing Co., Ltd. was sentenced to 20 years in prison for corruption, bribery, and embezzlement of public funds.

Wang Gang: The former vice president of China Ruilian Industrial Group Co., Ltd. was sentenced to 13 years in prison for corruption. Chinese government declares war on commercial bribery On February 24, 2006, Premier Wen Jiabao of the State Council presided over the Fourth National Conference on Integrity and Integrity, and deployed the clean government construction and anti-corruption work in the government system in 2006. "Treatment of commercial bribery" became one of the key points.In less than 10 days, Premier Wen has made two deployments on this issue.Previously, on February 15, when Wen Jiabao deployed the administrative supervision work, he demanded that the special work of combating commercial bribery should be seriously carried out, and the focus should be on investigating and punishing the behavior of civil servants in government agencies using administrative power to accept bribes.

According to Xinhua News Agency, these two meetings are the implementation of the spirit of the Sixth Plenary Session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.At the Sixth Plenary Session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection held on January 6, 2006, anti-commercial bribery was first proposed as an important content of anti-corruption, and was clearly identified as the focus of work in 2006. Anti-commercial bribery was thus raised to The height of anti-corruption. At the same time, the "Anti-Commercial Bribery Leading Group" led by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection to combat commercial bribery expanded its membership from 18 ministries to 22 ministries and commissions.This high-profile leadership group, which includes the legislature, judiciary and law enforcement agencies, was then formed.Its members include the Legal Work Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Supervision, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Land and Resources, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Communications, the Ministry of Information Industry, the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Health, and the Audit Office , State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, State Administration for Industry and Commerce, State Food and Drug Administration and other units.

The so-called commercial bribery refers to the direct or indirect payment or receipt of cash or physical objects in various names such as kickbacks, promotional fees, publicity fees, labor fees, reimbursement of various expenses, and provision of domestic and overseas travel for the purpose of obtaining business transaction opportunities. An act of unfair competition with other interests. Although widespread in various industries, commercial bribery is mostly regarded as a "hidden rule" that has long been outside the field of vision of law enforcement agencies. Cracking down on commercial bribery has been mentioned as "affecting the sustainable development of China's economy and society".Commercial bribery has caused great harm to the Chinese economy.Statistics from the Ministry of Commerce show that in the national pharmaceutical industry, drug rebates alone embezzle about 772 million yuan of state assets each year, accounting for about 16% of the national pharmaceutical industry's annual tax revenue.

What is shocking is that in the field of economic circulation, there are hidden rules of commercial bribery of power-for-money transactions in almost every industry.Among them, health care, infrastructure, telecommunications, finance and other sectors are the most important.If the problem of commercial bribery is not resolved in time, there will be unbearable social consequences. In a document issued by the central government, commercial bribery in the six major areas of engineering construction, land transfer, property rights transactions, pharmaceutical purchases and sales, government procurement, and resource development and distribution were identified as key targets for governance.

In our country, the vast majority of the bribery cases of senior leading cadres and major economic crimes that have been investigated and dealt with involve commercial bribery, so anti-commercial bribery is anti-corruption at the same time. On February 24, 2006, at the Incorruption Conference, Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized that we should focus on investigating and prosecuting the behavior of civil servants in government agencies using administrative power to accept bribes in accordance with the law.He said that although commercial bribery occurs in the transaction activities of operators, it is closely related to the abuse of power by government agencies and their staff and the use of power for personal gain.

Most of the official crimes covered in this book were dropped because of commercial bribery. As far as the series of bribery cases of the Agricultural Development Bank of China are concerned, the reason why this case became the first major case that attracted attention in 2006 is not only that this case brought down many senior financial officials, but more importantly, the national anti-corruption campaign in 2006 The object of the punching is commercial bribery. This case is one of the largest national anti-commercial bribery cases in 2006. Therefore, from this perspective, the Agricultural Bank of China case is not only the largest anti-commercial bribery case in 2006, but also The biggest case of 2006.

In fact, among the corruption cases investigated and dealt with in recent years, the case of the Agricultural Bank of China has neither a breakthrough in the amount nor a particularly bad plot.But this case, like other corruption cases of the same period, is also deeply imprinted with the unique brand of this era.This is an era of change, an era of transformation, an era of great changes in the market economy, and an era of government officials who have been sacked in the "collusion between government and businessmen, cat-and-mouse alliance".Official crimes in this era have the characteristics of the times: they are not only the "rules of the game" setters, but also the participants and vested interests of the "game".In order to ensure that they can win the game, they often take advantage of the rules and regulations to design themselves as "supervisors" or "referees".It is precisely because of the opacity and instability of the "rules of the game" that the "game" is unfair.National resources are always easily monopolized and utilized by the "rule" makers, and too much arbitrary disposal power provides a broad space for corruption to breed and grow.

Take Xu Fangming as an example. The Finance Department controlled by the former director of the Ministry of Finance is the core department of the Ministry of Finance responsible for the coordination and coordination of monetary policy and fiscal policy. It is responsible for 11 important functions such as the basic management of state-owned assets of financial institutions.In the words of industry insiders, the Department of Finance has "supervision, control and approval" for state-owned banks and financial institutions.As the director, Xu Fangming has these powers enough to "make everyone in the know feel awe."That's why we can see that when the Agricultural Development Bank submitted a report on leasing business approval to Xu Fangming, he "first recommended China Electronics Leasing Co., Ltd. company, arranged as an intermediary company for leasing business".In Xu Fangming's hands, the ownership of a certain business costing hundreds of millions of yuan, who will do it and how to do it, are all lip-service matters, but millions of yuan can be gained by talking and laughing. Although the specific circumstances of official corruption in the case of Agricultural Bank of China are different, the trajectories of these officials’ corruption are all similar: before they entered the officialdom, they were well-established, and they were diligent at the beginning of their tenure. False into a power trap.Absolute power coupled with nihilistic supervision and greedy motives constitute the law of today's officials' depravity.However, our anti-corruption method still believes that officials will stay away from the temptation of desire behind power based on their own ideals and beliefs.However, in the era of market economy, officials who can completely rely on moral and organizational strength to restrain themselves are rare, and more government officials have the impulse to use power for personal gain in the face of absolute power. Audit storm uncovers Hu Chushou In order for readers to understand the ins and outs of the case of the Agricultural Development Bank of China as soon as possible, it is first necessary to introduce the relevant background information on the establishment of the Agricultural Development Bank of China. No. 2, Yuetan North Street, Beijing, this building on the edge of Beijing's West Second Ring Road is the headquarters of the Agricultural Development Bank of China.As a policy bank, the ADBC's office address and business scope are rarely known, and it is known as "the loneliest bank" in the industry. On April 19, 1994, the State Council issued the "Guo Fa (1994) No. 25" document, announcing the establishment of the Agricultural Development Bank of China.According to the above-mentioned documents, the initial business scope of the Agricultural Development Bank was quite broad, including both credit business and financial tasks, that is, to undertake the country's agricultural policy financial business, and to act as an agent for the allocation of fiscal funds for agriculture. Serve". On June 30, 1994, the Agricultural Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China officially transferred the agricultural policy credit business to the Agricultural Development Bank, which was accepted by the Agricultural Bank of China on behalf of the Agricultural Development Bank, which had not yet been established at that time. In August 1994, the establishment of the head office of the Agricultural Development Bank was basically completed. When the Agricultural Development Bank was established in 1994, the senior leaders of the State Council put forward the "two nos" requirements for the Agricultural Development Bank: not to buy luxury cars, not to buy high-end office buildings, and to serve agriculture and the rural economy as a starting point.In addition, another person suggested that the Agricultural Development Bank "do not set up branches to avoid risks."However, shortly after the establishment of the Agricultural Development Bank, it deviated from its original intention and purchased an office building of about 30,000 square meters in one fell swoop, that is, the South Tower of Yuetan Building at No. 2 A, Yuetan North Street.Yuetan Building was completed in 1998, and the Head Office of the Agricultural Development Bank of China moved in immediately.Yuetan Building has become synonymous with the Agricultural Development Bank. The breakthrough of the "two nos" constraints has not stopped here, and the construction of the branches of the Agricultural Development Bank is also in full swing.By the end of March 1997, ADBC ​​implemented the head office, branch, and sub-branch system in terms of institutional setup, and implemented vertical leadership within the system.Headquartered in Beijing, it has 35 branches in various provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government and cities specifically designated in the state plan, 295 second-level branches in prefectures and cities, and 1,613 sub-branches in counties (county-level cities and districts).The bank employs nearly 60,000 people. Many people in the banking industry believe that there is no need for the Agricultural Development Bank to establish these branches.But the actual situation is that more than 1,000 county-level branches of the Agricultural Development Bank of China have spent huge sums of money to build office buildings.For example, the office building of a branch of the Agricultural Bank of China in a city in Liaoning cost nearly 120 million yuan. In addition to the office building, the mainframe that stores and processes the bank's daily transaction information, as well as the unique electronic security monitoring equipment, is another most important investment.According to a data, as of 1999, the number of electronic outlets of the Agricultural Development Bank's head office, provincial branches, prefectural (city) branches and county-level sub-branches accounted for about 85% of the total, a total of about 1,647. To this end, the Agricultural Development Bank has leased more than 8,000 sets of PC desktops, PC servers, and laptops, as well as laser printers, routers, and UPSs for various institutions.Among them, there are more than 300 PCs in the head office of the Agricultural Development Bank of China, which is basically one for each person.Obviously, the company that provides the leasing business for the Agricultural Development Bank is the beneficiary of this big deal. The trigger for the downfall of senior officials of the Agricultural Development Bank was these leasing businesses. Hu Chushou, the former vice-president of the Agricultural Development Bank of China, was the first to be sacked in this nesting case. His sacking was due to the audit storm in 2002. In June 2003, the Audit Office's 2002 audit report mentioned: From 1996 to 1999, the head office of the Agricultural Development Bank entrusted a company to purchase fixed assets such as electronic equipment and automobiles in the name of leasing, with a total amount of 920 million yuan, of which 810 million yuan It was misappropriated to invest in the stock market for stock trading, the whereabouts of the proceeds is unknown, and it is suspected of major economic crimes.It was Hu Chushou who was in charge of the leasing work at that time.During the investigation, the anti-corruption department found that the leasing case involved a large company, and confirmed that Hu Chushou's son had shares in the company, thus finding out that Hu Chushou was suspected of accepting bribes. Hu Chushou, born in July 1945, is a native of Hanshou County, Hunan Province. He once served as the director of the Agricultural Credit Department of the Agricultural Development Bank, the first vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank, and was in charge of fund planning. In 2001, at the age of 56, Hu Chushou was transferred to the Central Financial Working Committee, and successively served as the chairman of the board of supervisors of the Central Financial Working Committee in Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Cinda, and Great Wall Asset Management. Immediately, the procuratorate intervened in the case. According to the investigation of the Beijing procuratorate, in early 1996, after Hu Chushou met Cai Guoan, the general manager of Beijing Meihe Electronics Co., Ltd., he introduced his son Hu Gang to Meihe Company. In December 1997, through Hu Gang, Cai Guoan learned that the Agricultural Development Bank had a leasing business worth 200 million yuan.Under Hu Gang's mediation, Hu Chushou handed over the business to Meihe Company, and received 5 million yuan as a "benefit fee".Although Hu Chushou thought the 5 million yuan was a "hot potato", he accepted it and asked his son Hu Gang to use the money to register and establish Beijing Ritongcheng Technology Development Co., Ltd. Hu Chushou, who was about to retire, fell like this. Soon, Hu Chushou, who was the first to be involved in the ADBC ​​corruption case, appeared in court at the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.Prosecutors accused Hu Chushou, 60, of accepting more than 6 million yuan in bribes.Hu Chushou admitted the facts of the prosecution's allegations. The prosecution accused Hu Chushou of accepting a total of more than 6 million yuan in bribes: Hu Chushou received 5 million yuan in bribes from Cai Guoan, the general manager of Meihe Company, through his son Hu Gang. Hu Chushou accepted a bribe of 300,000 yuan from Yu Dalu, who had not been promoted to the position of vice president at that time. Hu Chushou accepted a total of 900,000 Hong Kong dollars in bribes from two Shenzhen companies. Hu Chushou accepted a bribe of 100,000 yuan from a certain company in the Dalian branch of the Agricultural Development Bank. The prosecution also stated that Hu Chushou had a good attitude in pleading guilty and confessed his criminal behavior to the prosecution. On the morning of January 18, 2006, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment and sentenced Hu Chushou to life imprisonment for accepting bribes, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.After the court ruling, Hu Chushou did not appeal. According to the court's judgment, from 1996 to 2003, Hu Chushou took advantage of his position as the vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank of China and the chairman of the board of supervisors of key state-owned financial institutions to seek benefits for the trustee, or to use the convenient conditions formed by his power and status to pass The behaviors of other state functionaries in their positions seek illegitimate benefits for others, and they have received more than 6.35 million yuan in property from others alone or together with his son Hu Gang. Because the Agricultural Development Bank's nest case has already involved Hu Chushou's son Hu Gang.Hu Gang has been investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate for this case. Hu Gang, born in January 1973, joined Shenzhen Jingyi Investment and Development Company after graduating from university in July 1994, and worked in a company in Beijing from May 1995 to August 1997.Then he joined Ritongcheng Technology Co., Ltd. as the legal representative and chairman.According to industry and commerce information, Ritongcheng Technology Co., Ltd. has a registered capital of 5 million yuan, and Hu Gang and Han Xiaoguo each hold 50% of the shares. According to insiders, the 2.5 million yuan of stock capital invested by Hu Gang was actually paid by Cai Guoan, while Han Xiaoguo He is also a relative of Cai Guoan. In October 1998, Hu Gang intervened in Meihe Company through Ritongcheng Company, holding 10% of the company's shares. In December 1999, 10% of the shares of Meihe Company held by Ritongcheng Company were all owned by Hu Gang.At this time, Hu Gang's equity in Meihe Company reached 5.6 million yuan. At the end of 2005, when Hu Gang returned to Hainan from abroad, he was arrested by the police and brought to justice. "Executor" Yu Dalu As the No. 2 figure in the case of the Agricultural Bank of China, both the media and Yu Dalu himself positioned him as the "executor" in this case. In early June 2004, Hu Chushou, who had just attended the National Financial Supervisory Board Meeting, was declared "double regulation".On the same day, Yu Dalu, the "No. 2 person" in the ADBC ​​corruption case and the vice president of the ADBC, also suffered the same fate.Yu Dalu was also the director of the financial and accounting department when the "leasing case" disclosed by the National Audit Office of the Agricultural Development Bank occurred. After Hu Chushou was transferred from the Agricultural Development Bank, Yu Dalu was successfully promoted to the vice president. Yu Dalu was born in a scholarly family. At the age of 15, he joined the Production and Construction Corps near Zhenbao Island on the Sino-Soviet border in Heilongjiang.After that, he studied at the Heilongjiang Bank School. After graduation, he worked in the financial system of Heilongjiang, working as a cashier, accountant, and loan officer, and took up a leadership position earlier.A person in the financial industry who is familiar with Yu Dalu said that with his "flexible ability to handle affairs", Yu Dalu rose from an ordinary clerk in the provincial financial system all the way to the head of an important department of the Agricultural Bank of China. After the establishment of the Agricultural Development Bank in 1994, Yu Dalu served as the director of the accounting department. When Hu Chushou was transferred from the Agricultural Development Bank in 2001, Yu Dalu was successfully promoted to the vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank. In September 2004, the Agricultural Development Bank's "leasing case" was handed over to the procuratorate, and the Investigation Department of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate subsequently filed the case for investigation.Soon, Hu Chushou and Yu Dalu were arrested on suspicion of embezzling public funds. On January 9, 2006, Yu Dalu, the former vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank of China, was tried in court on suspicion of accepting bribes, offering bribes and embezzling public funds.With a calm expression, Yu Dalu wears gold-rimmed glasses, a clean military overcoat, and clean cloth shoes. He has a clean face and neatly trimmed ears and temples. It has been more than a year since Yu Dalu was arrested and put on trial. He was arrested on August 25, 2004. On May 27, 2005, the investigation by the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate ended, and Yu Dalu was suspected of accepting bribes and embezzling public funds, and was transferred to the First Branch of the Municipal Procuratorate for review and prosecution.Due to insufficient evidence, the No. 1 Branch of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate returned the case for supplementary investigation twice and extended the review period three times. The prosecution accused Yu Dalu of taking advantage of his "lease" authority to accept five bribes totaling 8.31 million yuan.The five bribes were as follows: From the beginning of 1999 to July 2001, Yu Dalu successively accepted 420,000 yuan from a company in Tianjin, an automobile supplier, 300,000 yuan from a company in Shenzhen, an equipment supplier, and 300,000 yuan from a company in Hainan, China. 1 million yuan from Deng, and 2.59 million yuan from Zhao Dongming from Beijing Electronic Leasing Co., Ltd.In addition, in July 1999, Yu Dalu conspired with Huang Junjie, chairman of Yajie Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and demanded 4 million yuan in "compensation" from Beijing Meihe Electronics Co., Ltd.Prosecutors also accused Yu Dalu of embezzlement of public funds and bribery. From April 1999 to September 2000, Yu Dalu embezzled 4.1 million yuan of public funds for personal stock trading. At the beginning of 1999, Yu Dalu gave 300,000 yuan to Hu Chushou, then vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank, through Hu Chushou's son Hu Gang in order to promote his position. During the trial, Yu Dalu said that the prosecution's allegations were basically true, but he needed to explain a few specific issues.He denied that he had bribed Hu Chushou 300,000 yuan for his promotion.Yu Dalu said that the 300,000 yuan that the prosecution accused him of bribing was the same amount of money as the 300,000 yuan that he was accused of accepting a confession from a certain company in Shenzhen. "At the beginning of accepting the money, I was very hesitant." Yu Dalu said that it was Tan's "reassuring words" that made him accept the money.Tan said that sending "thank you" money has three meanings, "some for your boss (leader), for your progress, some for you, and some for your accounting department."Yu Dalu said that in order to prevent Tan from "exposing", Yu Dalu transferred all the money to the old leader Hu Chushou through Hu Gang. "Giving money to Hu Chushou was Tan's idea. If he hadn't said that, I wouldn't have given it." Yu Dalu denied that giving Hu Gang 300,000 yuan was a bribe to Hu Chushou, and he believed that he didn't give Hu Chushou money for promotion. "Why is your confession different today?" the judge interrupted Yu Dalu's defense. "The Hu Chushou case was also heard by this court. At that time, the court played the video of your testimony." The judge reminded Yu Dalu: "You said that you gave Hu Chushou 300,000 yuan for promotion. The court hopes that you will testify and stand trial. Tell the truth." Yu Dalu explained that the reason he retracted his confession was that he had no idea that he was also charged with bribery before receiving the indictment.Yu Dalu said: "At that time, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection helped me to analyze Tan's words, saying that my progress was actually a promotion. Wouldn't say that." The prosecution countered that Yu Dalu had personally admitted that he gave Hu Chushou money for promotion, and that Hu Chushou had indeed nominated and recommended Yu Dalu.According to the prosecution, Hu Chushou’s personal testimony stated that Yu Dalu’s bribe of 300,000 yuan “was just to help him get promoted. Although I can’t play a decisive role, my role is very important. We are actually buying officials.” and selling officials". In addition, Yu Dalu denied in court that he and Huang Junjie jointly demanded a bribe of 4 million yuan.Yu Dalu said that he neither conspired with Huang Junjie to share the money, nor participated in the signing of the contract, nor received any money.Yu Dalu admitted that he had proposed "compensation money" to Cai Guoan, the boss of Meihe Company, but that was proposed by Huang Junjie, because "compensation money is a commercial practice."Yu Dalu said that he did not take advantage of his position to forcefully ask for it, and Cai Guoan agreed "very happily". In court, Yu Dalu's defense lawyers Qian Lieyang and Xu Xilong defended Yu Dalu's innocence against the bribery charges on the basis of admitting the other six charges. Qian Lieyang believes that Yu Dalu's act of giving Hu Chushou 300,000 yuan through Hu Gang is only a bribery act that violates party discipline, not a crime of bribery that violates national law, because "seeking illegitimate benefits" is a necessary condition for constituting the crime of bribery, but the public prosecutor did not No evidence of "improperness" was presented.Qian Lieyang said, first of all, Yu Dalu did not ask Hu Chushou for promotion, and secondly, Yu Dalu did not meet the promotion requirements, and his promotion was justified. Xu Xilong said that in March 2000, Yu Dalu was promoted to assistant president, and in November he was promoted to vice president. In April and May of 2000, Hu Chushou was transferred from the Agricultural Development Bank, so Hu Chushou was able to help Yu Dalu Dalu was promoted only once when he was promoted to assistant to the president.According to the promotion procedure of the Agricultural Bank of China, it must first be recommended by the party committee, and then the top leaders of all branches and cadres above the director level of the head office must be democratically elected, which is not something that Hu Chushou can do alone. During the trial, the prosecution also pointed out that Yu Dalu had a statutory mitigating circumstance for major meritorious service.After arriving at the case, Yu Dalu exposed the major crimes committed by Xu Fangming, Wang Gang, and Zhao Dongming, which were verified by the judiciary as major meritorious acts.During his stay in Shuanggui, Yu Dalu not only admitted the facts of bribery that the investigation agency had grasped, but also voluntarily confessed the 2.59 million yuan of bribery and the embezzlement of public funds of 4.1 million yuan that the investigation agency did not know at the time, and entrusted his family members to actively return the stolen money. Therefore, it is recommended to the court Lighter sentence. In the final statement stage, Yu Dalu pleaded guilty and accepted the court's judgment unconditionally.Yu Dalu said that he failed the education given to him by the country and tarnished the image of the party and the government, "I am willing to confess my sins to the people with the most sincerity, make amends, and when I return to society, I will wholeheartedly Engage in social services." At the same time, Yu Dalu said that his explanations in court are all facts, and he hopes that the court can give him a lighter punishment. Yu Dalu said in court that he also struggled fiercely when he received the first sum of money, but in the end he pocketed the money.He luckily thought: "One sends money and the other receives money. There is no proof, and the other has no evidence. What is the risk? Besides, bribery and bribery are two grasshoppers on the same rope in law. How about going to accuse yourself of committing bribery?" However, after being arrested, Yu Dalu confessed to Huang Junjie, Xu Fangming and others one after another. On February 10, 2006, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on Dalu's case of accepting bribes, embezzling public funds, and offering bribes.The court held that Yu Dalu's crimes of accepting bribes, embezzling public funds, and offering bribes were serious.However, since Yu Dalu was detained on suspicion of bribery, he was able to confess the facts of embezzlement of public funds that the judiciary has not yet grasped.Therefore, the court ruled: Yu Dalu was guilty of accepting bribes and sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and all personal property was confiscated; Life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property. Regarding Yu Dalu's criminal trajectory, please refer to the confession written by Yu Dalu in the detention center in the appendix of this article. Cai Guoan has the skills to make money Behind the case of the Agricultural Bank of China is the most prominent issue of commercial bribery.Cai Guoan, who implemented the "sugar bomb" tactic in this nesting case, is an extremely key figure. Cai Guoan, chairman of Meihe Company, born in Yiyang, Hunan, 40 years old, was assigned to work at the Sixth Flight Academy of the Air Force after graduating from Beihang University, and then transferred to the office of the Asian Games Organizing Committee. A turning point in Cai Guoan’s life occurred in April 1991, when he was transferred to work in the head office of the Agricultural Bank of China.Because Hu Chushou and Cai Guoan are fellow villagers in Hunan, at the head office of the Agricultural Bank of China, Cai Guoan maintained a very close relationship with Hu Chushou, who was then the director of the bank's agricultural credit department. In August 1994, the establishment of the head office of the Agricultural Development Bank was basically completed.Hu Chushou served as the first vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank, in charge of capital planning.In October of the same year, Meihe Company was established, and Cai Guoan left the office of the head office of the Agricultural Bank of China to become the manager of the company.For more than 10 years since then, Cai Guoan's personal future has maintained a special relationship with Hu Chushou. In October 1994, when Beijing Meihe Electronics Co., Ltd. was established, its registered capital was 2 million yuan, and its legal representative was Mr. Guo.Among the first four shareholders, the Agricultural Bank of China Trust and Investment Company contributed 36% of the capital, and Beijing Four Chuang High-tech Development Company and other four shareholders contributed 16% of the capital respectively.These funding sources demonstrate the special relationship between Meihe and Agricultural Bank of China.After the establishment of the company, Cai Guoan left the office of the head office of the Agricultural Bank of China to serve as the general manager of the company. Coincidentally, the Agricultural Development Bank was established in June 1994, four months earlier than Meihe Company.The business of the Agricultural Development Bank was originally separated from the Agricultural Bank of China. In the early days of its establishment, most of the staff of the Agricultural Development Bank, including the leadership, had worked in the Head Office of the Agricultural Bank of China, including Hu Chushou, the first vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank.As soon as Meihe Company was established, it had an indissoluble bond with the Agricultural Development Bank.Later, according to the investigation of the Ministry of Supervision, Cai Guoan, the legal representative of Meihe Company, used the opportunity of capital increase and share expansion to separate from the parent company and took huge amounts of state-owned assets for himself. According to industrial and commercial data, Meihe Company has increased its capital twice in history.Until December 1999, a large-scale equity transfer turned Meihe into a completely private company.The other four shareholders transferred their shares to Cai Guoan, and Cai Guoan alone controlled about 60% of the company's shares.So far, several major state-owned shareholders of Meihe Company at the time of its establishment have no equity connection with the company. The relationship between Meihe and the Agricultural Development Bank is the focus of this case. With the conclusion of the case, the truth becomes clearer. For a financial institution like the Agricultural Development Bank, the fixed assets include the office building, the most important thing is the mainframe that stores and processes the bank's daily transaction information, and the unique electronic security monitoring equipment of the financial sector.The price of a bank's mainframe can cost millions of dollars, and each branch has at least one mainframe and corresponding storage devices, as well as multiple expensive mid-range and minicomputers. Here we have to reiterate the "two nos" requirements put forward by the senior leaders of the State Council to the Agricultural Development Bank in the early days of its establishment: not to purchase luxury cars and not to purchase high-end office buildings.And a variety of large-scale equipment, also take the approach of leasing. Banks lease equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and the annual rent will be quite generous.With the scale of Meihe Company, it is simply unable to purchase fixed assets worth 920 million yuan.In fact, it was the Agricultural Development Bank who gave the loan to Meihe Company, and Meihe Company used the loan to purchase equipment and then sub-leased it to the Agricultural Development Bank.The funds of Meihe Company, whether they are used to purchase electronic equipment or invest in the stock market, all come from the Agricultural Development Bank. Cai Guoan played an important role in the case of the Agricultural Development Bank’s corruption case. In December 1997, he learned that the Agricultural Development Bank had a lease business of 200 million yuan, so he obtained the business through Hu Chushou, the former vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank. Hu Chushou received 5 million yuan in bribes.Later, in another leasing business of 300 million yuan, he gave a bribe of 4 million yuan to Yu Dalu, the former vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank. It can be said that both Hu Chushou and Yu Dalu were hit by his "sugar bomb". According to the investigation by the procuratorate, from 1996 to 1999, Cai Guoan took advantage of his position as the general manager and legal representative of Meihe Company to defraud the company of funds by fabricating business expenses, using false invoices to balance accounts, and embezzling the company's off-book funds. , Has illegally occupied the company 30 million yuan.When Meihe Company increased its registered capital and some of its shareholders transferred equity, Cai Guoan used the 30 million yuan to invest in the company and purchase the equity transferred by the company’s shareholders, and illegally obtained Meihe Company with a registered capital of 50 million yuan. 60% stake.As a state employee, Cai Guoan took advantage of his position to illegally take the funds of his unit for himself. The amount was huge and should be punished as a crime of corruption. If Cai Guoan is a state employee, embezzling more than 30 million yuan is enough to sentence him to death.However, during the trial of the case, Cai Guoan's defender applied for an adjournment of the trial in order to obtain evidence.After the resumption of the trial, his defender submitted to the court the annual assessment form for the staff of the Agricultural Bank of China head office and the directly affiliated units, and the approval form for the transfer of personnel from various enterprises in Haidian District who retained their national status to prove that Cai Guoan resigned from public office in 1998. Do not have the status of national staff.These evidences were later accepted by the court, so Cai Guoan could only be punished with the crime of embezzlement. On January 26, 2006, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court sentenced Cai Guoan to 20 years in prison for the crime of embezzlement and embezzlement, and confiscated 700,000 yuan of property.The verdict stated that Cai Guoan took advantage of his position as the general manager of Meihe Company appointed by a state-owned company from 1996 to January 1998 to illegally occupy 3.43 million yuan from Meihe Company, which constituted a crime of corruption and was sentenced to 13 years in prison. .He also embezzled 30 million yuan from Meihe Company from February 1998 to December 1999, constituting the crime of occupation embezzlement, and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.The court punished him for both crimes, and executed a combined fixed-term imprisonment of 20 years. Taking advantage of the fire to rob Huang Junjie On November 14, 2005, Huang Junjie, another key figure in the Agricultural Bank of China case, appeared in Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court for trial. Huang Junjie, who has only a junior high school education, is 41 years old and is the chairman of Yajie Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.According to Huang Junjie's statement, he met Yu Dalu in 1993 when he was promoting products, and Yu Dalu was working in the Agricultural Bank of China at that time. In 1999, Huang Junjie learned that the Agricultural Development Bank had a 300 million yuan equipment leasing business, which could earn 5% of the profit, so he proposed to Yu Dalu, who had been transferred to the Agricultural Development Bank, to undertake the business, and Yu Dalu agreed to give him half of the business.Therefore, Huang Junjie's company began to conduct market research, and produced a feasibility report and sent it to the Agricultural Development Bank. But in September 1999, Yu Dalu said that he had handed over all the business to Meihe Company, and Huang Junjie was not reconciled to getting the business after a lot of effort, so he wanted to coordinate with Yu Dalu and give him half of the business, or Give two-thirds of the profit.Later, Huang Junjie conspired with Yu Dalu, then director of the Financial and Accounting Department of the Agricultural Development Bank, and took advantage of Yu Dalu's position in charge of the equipment leasing business. Because of Dalu's intervention, if Meihe Company wanted to undertake all the leasing business on its own, it would have to pay for its competitors. In the name of compensation, they demanded RMB 4 million for "compensation" from Meihe Company, which contracted the business.In order to conceal the fact that he and Yu Dalu jointly demanded the money, Huang Junjie instigated others to pretend to be the legal representative of Shenzhen Hengmingda Industrial Co., Ltd., signed a false entrusted service contract with Meihe Company, forged an entrusted payment letter, etc. He company RMB 4 million. But when he was tried in court, Huang Junjie retracted his confession on key issues, denying that he conspired with Yu Dalu to extort 4 million yuan in bribes.He said in court that in 1999, when he learned that the Ministry of Finance had approved the Agricultural Development Bank's 300 million yuan leasing business, he approached Yu Dalu to undertake the business.Cai Guoan, the boss of Meihe Company, found Hu Chushou, the vice president of the Agricultural Development Bank.Huang Junjie said that Meihe Company is facing listing and needs to accumulate performance, so Cai Guoan took half of the profits as compensation for the withdrawal of competitors.According to the confessions of Yu Dalu and Cai Guoan, the prosecution pointed out that Huang Junjie instigated Yu Dalu to demand 4 million yuan from Meihe Company by virtue of his position.According to Yu Dalu's account, at that time Hu Chushou had decided to let Meihe Company take over the business, Huang Junjie was jealous and asked him to negotiate with Cai Guoan.Yu Dalu knew that with his own power, Cai Guoan could give up half of his business or half of his profits.Cai Guoan also knew that "it is impossible to sign a contract without paying any money", so Cai Guoan finally decided to sacrifice some interests.The prosecution pointed out that Huang Junjie used his relative Liu to find paper with the official seal of Hengmingda Company, etc., and asked Liu to sign a commissioned maintenance service contract with Meihe Company.Cai Guoan explained that the contract was signed falsely, "just to give 4 million yuan a legal title."According to the prosecutor, Cai Guoan paid the full 4 million yuan in installments according to the payment process of the Agricultural Development Bank, while Hengmingda Company did not provide any maintenance services. “恒明达公司是我买的，和亚捷公司没什么不同。”黄俊杰在法庭上狡辩说，亚捷公司至今还在为美禾公司提供维修服务，并出具维修服务记录单证明。对此，检方指出，记录单是亚捷公司的单方面记录，且维修时间全在美禾公司付款之后，“不符合商业常理”。无可奈何之下，黄俊杰辩称，他并非国家工作人员，也没有与国家工作人员于大路合谋，根本就不构成受贿罪。他一口咬定400万元是蔡国安给他的合理补偿。检方指出，根据于大路的口供，当初是黄俊杰提议他去与蔡国安谈的，由于黄俊杰答应分给于大路所得钱财的三分之一，他才去做了说客。检方说，审计署查账时，于大路曾让黄俊杰退钱，说明于大路很清楚这400万元的性质，黄俊杰是因“过于自信”，认为合同签得天衣无缝才没有退钱。黄俊杰是索贿的提出者，他教唆于大路，凭借特殊身份和职权索贿，并伪造收款指令接受赃款，属于主犯。 庭审过程中，黄俊杰的律师将一份黄俊杰具有伯利兹国籍的证据送上法庭，建议法庭给予黄俊杰“驱逐出境”的处罚。检方怀疑证据的真实性，指出我国不承认双重国籍，应以户籍为准。黄俊杰表示，他于1992年以“投资移民”方式，取得了伯利兹国籍。他只在该国住过一个月，也没有房产，只是当时将5万元美金投入股市。最后，这个“驱逐出境”的请求没有被采纳。 2005年12月19日上午，北京市第一中级人民法院对黄俊杰受贿案作出一审判决，以受贿罪判处被告人黄俊杰有期徒刑15年，并处没收个人财产人民币30万元。 合谋贪赃的王刚、赵东明 中国瑞联实业集团有限公司副总裁王刚和中国电子租赁有限公司副总经理赵东明，都是于大路揭发出来的。 根据法院对于大路的审判，于大路在担任农发行财会部主任期间，利用主管汽车租赁业务的职务便利，为中国电子租赁有限公司承揽农发行4.36亿元的汽车租赁业务提供帮助。2001年3月至11月期间，于大路多次收受中国电子租赁有限公司副总经理赵东明给予的贿赂款共计259万元。 检方指控称，赵东明于2000年5月，假借支付咨询费的名义，与中国瑞联电子有限公司副经理王刚共同骗取该公司493万元，非法占有。1998年10月至1999年4月，赵东明还利用其负责中电租与农发行汽车租赁业务的职务便利，为北京诚奥达商务投资咨询有限公司从租赁业务中赚取咨询费提供帮助，先后收受该公司贿赂112万元。此外，赵东明还于1998年5月至7月，先后将中电租公款3060万元挪至证券市场进行个人股票交易。 赵东明承认检方的指控属实，但他认为他贪污的款项是于大路主谋，挪用的公款也是和于大路一起炒股。赵东明说，中电租和农发行的4.36亿元业务是中电租提供运钞车，农发行每年支付1亿元左右的租赁费，实际上中电租根本不能做租赁汽车的业务，所以就把业务转给有汽车租赁资质的中国瑞联电子有限公司，而中电租就坐拿代理费。赵东明说，购置车辆所需款项只有3亿余元，与租赁费有1亿的差价。于大路提出这笔租赁业务以后要经财政部审批和审计部门审查，于是他和王刚从中瑞联拿出493万元，于大路拿了303万元，其余的钱他和王刚分了。 2000年5月，赵东明与王刚经预谋后，在负责执行瑞联公司与农发行的汽车租赁业务中，采取假借支付诚奥达公司咨询费的名义，使用伪造的诚奥达公司《委托付款通知书》等手段，共同骗取瑞联公司资金493.14万元非法占有。 1998年10月至1999年4月期间，赵东明在负责中电租公司与农发行汽车租赁业务过程中，为诚奥达公司从租赁业务中赚取咨询费提供帮助，为此先后收受诚奥达公司法定代表人韩冰给予的贿赂款共计112万余元。 庭审中，赵东明没有否认这些犯罪事实，但他强调，这些都是农发行原副行长于大路指使或主谋的，自己系从犯。但法院经审理认为，赵东明在贪污罪中，事先有预谋，并私刻公章伪造文件，在犯罪中起主要作用。在其主动交待的挪用3060万元公款一事中，依据现有证据，也无法认定于大路共同参与。 法院认为，赵东明的行为已经构成贪污、受贿、挪用公款罪。因其被羁押后，主动交待了公安机关尚不掌握的挪用公款的事实，对其所犯挪用公款罪应以自首论，且所挪用的款项全部退还，依法可予从轻处罚。其所犯贪污罪、受贿罪的数额特别巨大，并且其犯罪所得至今未能追缴，本应予以从重处罚，但鉴于赵东明能够认罪、悔罪，对其所犯贪污罪、受贿罪亦可从轻处罚。法院一审贪污、受贿、挪用公款罪，判处赵东明有期徒刑20年。 在此之前的2006年3月9日，中国瑞联实业集团有限公司副总裁王刚也接到了法院的判决，王刚因贪污490余万元公款被一审判处有期徒刑13年。根据法院判决书，2000年8月，王刚与汽车租赁商北京电子租赁有限公司老总赵东明预谋，伪造支付咨询费，非法占有本单位资金493.14万元，赵东明将其中259万元送给于大路，王刚则分得赃款63万余元。 无疑，这起重大商业贿赂案件中，蔡国安等多位企业老总通过向农发行关键人物行贿，实现了自己利益最大化，当然，也因此葬送了自己。 学者型高官徐放鸣 2006年11月10日，农发行窝案最终落幕的一刻，其实才是这个案件的最高潮，原财政部金融司司长徐放鸣被判刑13年，成为农发行窝案“鸣金收兵”的结尾。“老徐（徐放鸣）和韩冰（诚奥达公司的负责人）太黑了。”徐放鸣的落马是于大路的一句抱怨抖出来的。 尽管只是被界定为农发行窝案之一，财政部金融司司长徐放鸣落马的影响和引起的震荡，却远远超乎此案，因为徐放鸣是近年来财政部涉案的最高级别官员。 徐放鸣最初被检察机关注意的是，1997年12月，财政部批准由中国电子租赁有限公司租赁汽车给农发行，而中电租是徐放鸣点名推荐的，而且徐放鸣的关系公司为此拿走700多万元“咨询费”。 作为三大政策性银行之一的农发行，其工资决定、固定资产和设备购置等都要由商贸金融司来决定。 于大路在供述中称：“因农发行受财政部金融司徐放鸣管辖，农发行与财政部谈追加一部分汽车租赁指标，财政部内定给农发行6个亿指标。徐司长问我：'你们汽车租赁商选没选好？如果没选好，我可以推荐。'我认为财政部推荐的租赁商比较可靠，而且是徐司长推荐的，我们以后也方便理顺关系。于是，我就按徐放鸣的推荐选中了中电租和美禾公司。”后来，由于税收政策的变化，农发行将整笔业务交给中电租的合资子公司瑞联公司。为解决贷款的事情，于大路再次找到徐放鸣。 业务结束后，农发行支付了2000万元的手续费，徐放鸣的关系公司北京诚奥达商务投资咨询有限公司拿走了700多万元。在检察机关供述到此处时，于大路不禁愤恨地说道：“老徐和韩冰太黑了。” 经检察机关查证，1997年徐放鸣担任财政部金融司领导时，曾负责审批农发行一份报批租赁业务的报告，而农发行方面的负责人正是于大路。审批时，徐放鸣首先推荐中电租承接部分租赁业务，随后又将自己熟悉的诚奥达介绍给了中电租，作为租赁业务的中介公司。为此，徐放鸣4次收受诚奥达负责人韩冰给予其的109万余元人民币。 现年47岁的徐放鸣是内蒙古赤峰人，1982年自上海财政经济学院本科毕业后，直接分配进了财政部。从一名普通的科员，很快成为财政部综合司工资处处长。在人才济济的财政部，徐放鸣表现突出。徐放鸣受到赏识主要与其所学专业有关。徐放鸣是上海财经学院“文革”后复校初期第一批毕业生，当时全国范围都面临金融人才的断档现象，所以即使在财政部，徐放鸣这种专业金融类本科生已是相当抢手。 正是因为他工作上的突出表现，1998年中央进行机构改革，财政部机构设置作了调整，其中一项就是成立金融司。在这次改革中，徐放鸣脱颖而出，由商贸司副司长调任金融司副司长，并在2000年转任司长，年仅42岁。 在社交场合，徐放鸣一直非常低调谨慎。作为金融系统内的一名重要官员，他很少参加公开的研讨会。作为一位身居要职的官员，在领导、同事和合作者眼里，他“干练、敏锐、熟悉业务、有一定的理论功底”。徐放鸣是公认的学者型官员，出版过大量著作及论文集，诸如《世界贸易组织与农业政策》、《社会保障初论》等。同时，他拥有高级经济师的头衔，他还担任着财政部财政科学研究所2005年硕士研究生的导师。 但无疑的是，徐放鸣拥有巨大的权力。财政部内部人士则将金融司的职能概括成：对国有银行和金融机构“有监有管有审批”。 徐放鸣拥有的权力，与其学识一样令人羡慕，他一直是国内外银行家追逐和奉迎的对象。在中国，中央政府是管理各种国家银行、资产经营公司、国有发展银行及证券公司的“最大股东”，而徐放鸣所在的部门恰恰代表了政府在这方面的意志。 根据工作分工，财政部金融司的主要职责是：负责货币政策及其与财政政策协调配合的研究工作；负责金融机构国有资产的基础管理工作，组织实施金融机构国有资产的清产核资、资本金权属界定和登记、统计、分析、评估；负责金融机构国有资产转让、划转处置管理，监交国有资产收益；拟订银行、保险、证券、信托及其他非银行金融机构的资产与财务管理制度并监督其执行；指导地方金融机构资产和财务监管工作等。 徐放鸣晋职不久，即赶上农发行开始组建。农发行的固定资产和设备购置等事宜，由商贸金融司来决定。 有人曾笑称，“行长要换辆车，也得徐放鸣批”。 正是循着于大路提供的线索，围绕徐放鸣的调查展开了。2005年6月24日，徐放鸣因涉嫌受贿被执行刑事拘留。7月1日，检察院签发并下达了对徐放鸣的批捕令。 按惯例，徐放鸣这类干部会经过“双规”程序，但徐放鸣由北京市检察机关直接采取强制手段。此后，经反贪部门的侦查，又经两次退侦，两次延长审查期限，检方终于在逮捕徐放鸣一年多后，对其提起公诉。 检方指控，1997年至1998年，徐放鸣利用其先后担任财政部商贸金融司副司长、国债金融司副司长主管金融工作的职务便利为诚奥达公司的经营提供帮助，并收受该公司法人代表韩冰分4次给予的20万元人民币，10.8万美元的贿赂，折合后总计人民币109万余元。1999年至2000年，徐放鸣还收受他人贿赂12.8万美元，折合人民币105万余元。 2006年9月15日，财政部金融司原司长徐放鸣身着囚衣，被押上法庭。法院认定，徐放鸣在任期间利用职权为他人牟利，并受贿214万余元。北京市第一中级人民法院一审以受贿罪判处其无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收全部财产。 一审判决后，徐放鸣不服，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院经过慎重审理，鉴于徐放鸣的犯罪后果没有给国家造成特别严重的损失，在侦查期间已经追缴部分受贿款项，在二审期间徐放鸣的亲属又积极代为退缴全部剩余受贿款项，且认罪态度较好等具体情节，可对其再予从轻处罚，依法予以改判。 2006年11月10日，北京市高级人民法院终审以受贿罪判处徐放鸣有期徒刑13年。 金融高管落马的切肤之痛 随着涉案人物相继受审和判决，农发行窝案似乎已经尘埃落定，但是该案所反映出的问题并没有因司法惩处而终结。金融高管问题频发显然不是中国银行业改革的必然产物，但毋庸讳言，这些事件的发生说明中国金融业存在一些问题。金融高管出事，从表面上看是一个金融腐败问题，但更深层次的问题是，什么样的人才放心让他们看管国家“钱袋子”？ 金融高管频频出事，暴露出我国金融界传统的人事任免机制存在问题。众所周知，中国的金融高管基本上不是由市场选择而是由组织任命的。因此这些高管更多的是对上级组织而不是对所在银行负责，这便造成个人权力过大，缺乏市场的有效约束监督。市场经济条件下真正规范和有效的用人机制是：在市场上选拔人才，以市场方式对待人才。从这个意义上讲，中国银行业改革必须进行人事任免制度创新。 金融高管落马的根本原因在于我国银行业充分竞争的市场环境尚未真正形成。中国的金融高管频频出事，不能抹杀国有商业银行改革已经取得的巨大成就，但必须清醒地认识到，贪污受贿、弄虚作假，仍是当前我国金融界的弊病之一。在这样一种大环境下，金融高管不能独善其身，腐败现象仍然存在滋生和蔓延的土壤。这里固然有中国银行业整体改革滞后的原因，但更根本的原因在于我国银行业充分竞争的市场环境尚未真正形成。只有竞争的市场，才能孕育出优质的商业银行和银行家。因此，必须改进国有商业银行的法人治理结构，完善银行业的激励约束机制，政府要以第一责任人的身份去积极创建公平竞争的市场环境。 近年来，金融大案频频发生，银行高管接二连三落马，部分银行内部管理松弛、有章不循的混乱局面暴露无遗。2006年陆续宣判的农发行窝案、中国建设银行行长张恩照受贿案，更让人们认识到金融犯罪之猖狂。 根据北京检察机关的调查，近年“窝案”、“串案”主要发生区域指向金融、财政、交通、电信等行业。金融等行业“窝案”、“串案”多发为“反腐败斗争的长期性、艰巨性和复杂性”提供了注脚。一些位高权重的腐败分子“扎成堆”、“抱成团”，问题越来越严重，他们“利益均沾”、“互相掣肘”、“披着合法外衣”的手法使案件的查办越来越艰难。 近年来，在对各银行业金融机构地毯式的排查中，一批金融案件浮出水面。中国银监会官方网站2006年11月披露，仅仅2006年1月到9月，银行业金融机构累计处理涉案人员744人，有110人被取消高管任职资格。 值得注意的是，金融高管犯罪行为大多发生在20世纪90年代后期和本世纪初的几年，而这正是国有商业银行转型的关键阶段，国家开始赋予各商业银行运用信贷资金的充分权力，而与此相适应的监管体制和银行内部治理机制却未完全到位。近年来发生的一些金融大案，显示了中国银行业这段特殊的历史时期的案件特点。 从某种意义来说，我国银行的高管与一些政府管理机构的官员无异，个人的绝对权力过大，产生寻租现象也就不足为奇了。计划经济时代银行按行政区域设置，国有银行带有很重的行政色彩，迄今银行的高管为“高官”已成常理，一些制度性因素在多次改革中并没有完全解决。 最近，国务院在对农发行业务范围拓展申请的答复中，特别要求农发行必须首先搞好内部体制改革和管理。这是非常及时的，内部问题不解决，事后的惩罚只能是“屡惩屡犯”。目前，中国金融行业必须从体制上产生让金融家主动为国家着想的原动力。只有如此，才能为防止金融家群体的“塌方”寻找到一条出路。 于大路的忏悔书 我原来任农业发展银行副行长，是2004年6月3日被中央纪委“双规”的，8月13日是因为涉嫌受贿罪被公安机关刑事拘留，8月25日被检察院依法逮捕的，成为人民的罪人。 小的时候，我也有过美好的童年和远大的理想与抱负。15岁就参加工作，是在黑龙江中苏边境珍宝岛附近的生产建设兵团，那个地方非常艰苦，6年务农我什么活都干过，什么苦都吃过。 1975年作为优秀知青被选送到哈尔滨的一所大学读书，我的父母均是教师，家庭可谓书香门第。 从学校毕业后，我被分配到银行工作，我当过出纳、会计、信贷员，当过县支行行长。在党的培养教育下，又较早地走上了领导岗位。由于我熟悉银行会计业务、文笔还算可以，1989年被选调到农业银行总行会计部，以后给一位副行长当过三年专职秘书。可以说那一段时间是一路升迁，朝气蓬勃。女儿现正在北京大学读书，爱人也在银行工作，一家人十分幸福。 往事不堪回首，在我仕途刚刚起步，事业辉煌、家庭幸福的时候，我却沦为阶下囚。人生惨痛的失败一夜之间造成的巨大反差，常使我暗自流泪，痛心疾首。岁月无情地流逝，而我的人格永远钉在了耻辱的十字架上，对子女、对家庭、对我们一切都将产生不可估量的影响。我为什么会堕落到这个地步，又有哪些深刻