Is it considered a violation of discipline?, Collecting interest of 400000 yuan, the Deputy Director of the Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau lent 1 million yuan to the boss. Party Group | Engineering | Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau

【 Typical Cases 】

Yuan, member of the Party Group and Deputy Director of the Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau of a certain city. From 2017 to 2020, the project owner Chen gradually took on multiple government projects within Yuan's jurisdiction, but Yuan did not provide assistance. In January 2018, Chen requested a loan from Yuan due to construction needs and promised to pay interest at an annual interest rate of 20%. Yuan decided to lend his family funds of 500000 yuan to earn interest. At the same time, Yuan informed his wife and brother Wang of Chen's loan needs and promised interest rates. Wang also invested 500000 yuan to ask Yuan to lend it to Chen together. In February 2018, Yuan transferred 1 million yuan to Chen's bank account through Wang's account and signed a written loan agreement with Chen in his name. As of the 2020 incident, Chen paid a total of 400000 yuan in interest to Yuan, and Yuan and Wang each received 200000 yuan.

Divergent opinions

In this case, there is no disagreement regarding Yuan's behavior of using family funds for lending and interest collection as a violation of integrity discipline, and obtaining large returns through private lending; There are three opinions on how to characterize the behavior of Yuan absorbing 500000 yuan from Wang and lending interest to Chen together.

The first opinion is that Wang and Chen are equal civil subjects, and Chen has a financial need. Wang lent money through Yuan, but the interest rate did not exceed Chen's financing rate, which is considered normal private lending and should not be pursued for disciplinary responsibility.

The second opinion is that Mr. Yuan helped Mr. Wang to lend money and collect interest from his management and service target Mr. Chen, whose authority can guarantee the safety of Mr. Wang's principal and infringe on the integrity of Party members and cadres. In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Regulations of the CPC on Disciplinary Action, his party discipline responsibility should be investigated for violating the integrity discipline and taking advantage of his authority to seek profits for his relatives.

The third opinion believes that Yuan absorbed Wang's funds and lent interest to Chen in the name of Wang. The actual borrowing and lending parties were Yuan and Chen, and Chen's borrowing target was Yuan. In this case, Yuan violated the rules by lending interest to Wang, and distributing part of the interest to Wang was his personal behavior in dealing with disciplinary gains. In accordance with Article 90, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations, he should be held accountable for violating integrity discipline and obtaining large returns through private lending.

[Analysis Opinion]

In this case, the author agrees with the third opinion that Yuan's behavior constitutes a violation of integrity discipline, obtaining large returns through private lending, and affecting the fair execution of official duties.

1、 Wang made a profit by lending money to Chen through Yuan, which may affect Yuan's fair performance of official duties

The lending activities between equal civil subjects have to some extent addressed some of the social financing needs. However, if public power intervenes in private lending activities, whether it is party members and cadres lending directly to management and service objects, or helping relatives and friends lend to management and service objects, it will change the equal status of both parties. Lending activities may be directly or indirectly influenced by power and position, leading to the alienation and abuse of power, and even evolving into interest transmission and power money transactions, infringing on the integrity of party members and cadres in their positions. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to discipline early and take precautions against minor issues.

In this case, Wang lent money to Chen through Yuan, and the reason for this is that there are risks in private lending, which may make it difficult to obtain expected returns and even fail to recover the principal. Wang knew that Chen had undertaken engineering projects within the jurisdiction of Yuan, which belonged to Yuan's management and service objects. Yuan had a certain restraining effect on Chen, and in this situation, he lent money to Chen through Yuan, with the purpose of using Yuan's authority or position to ensure his profit and capital security. Yuan was aware of Wang's true intention, but still considered helping his relatives and friends earn interest together, so he absorbed Wang's funds to lend and collect interest from Chen. It is obvious that the subject status of both parties is unequal. Based on the considerations of Yuan's authority or position, Chen will prioritize the protection of Yuan and Wang's interests. Yuan's consideration of safeguarding interests and capital security may also affect the exercise of power.

Based on this, Yuan's act of absorbing Wang's funds to lend and collect interest to management and service targets may affect his fair performance of official duties and infringe on the integrity of his official duties, which constitutes a disciplinary violation.

2、 Yuan's behavior should be grasped and evaluated from a substantive perspective

The composition of disciplinary violations includes two elements: "violation" and "responsibility". "Violation" refers to the behavior of party members and cadres that must be prohibited by the party's discipline or that does not meet the party's disciplinary requirements. "Responsibility" refers to the comprehensive consideration of various factors such as the actor's intention or negligence, and the ability to bear responsibility.

In this case, Yuan intentionally carried out two objective behaviors based on lending and interest collection to the management and service objects. Firstly, he absorbed Wang's funds, and secondly, he lent money together with his own family funds to the management and service object Chen. The focus of this case is whether Yuan's behavior is illegal. It is obvious that Yuan's behavior is illegal, and the point of violation is that he used his power to lend and collect interest from Chen. As for the source of his loan funds, it does not affect the qualitative nature of his behavior. There is no substantial difference between using his own funds and absorbing Wang's funds for lending. Chen's known borrowing target is Yuan, and he does not care about the source of Yuan's funds. What he cares about is the influence of Yuan's authority. Based on this, Yuan's act of absorbing Wang's funds for lending is essentially a behavior of obtaining large returns through private lending, which affects the fair execution of official duties.

It should be noted that Yuan's absorption of Wang's money, along with the interest earned from illegal lending of his own funds, should be recognized as Yuan's disciplinary gains and collected. The distribution of a portion of the interest to Wang is his personal act of disposing of the disciplinary gains and cannot be a defense against his refusal to submit the disciplinary gains.