
国务院国有资产监督管理委员会原副部长级干部潘良因涉嫌受贿罪和利用影响力受贿罪,经国家监察委员会调查后被移送检察机关审查起诉。最高人民检察院已作出逮捕决定,并指定安徽省淮北市人民检察院审查起诉。近日,淮北市人民检察院已向淮北市中级人民法院提起公诉,指控潘良利用职务便利为他人谋取利益并非法收受巨额财物。
AI-generated summary
潘良曾担任国务院办公厅秘书二局助理政务专员、副局长、局长,国有重点大型企业监事会主席,国务院国有资产监督管理委员会副部长级干部等职务。
国务院国有资产监督管理委员会原副部长级干部潘良涉嫌受贿、利用影响力受贿一案,由国家监察委员会调查终结,移送检察机关审查起诉。最高人民检察院依法以涉嫌受贿罪、利用影响力受贿罪对潘良作出逮捕决定,并指定由安徽省淮北市人民检察院审查起诉。近日,淮北市人民检察院已向淮北市中级人民法院提起公诉。
检察机关在审查起诉阶段,依法告知了被告人潘良享有的诉讼权利,并讯问了被告人,听取了辩护人的意见。检察机关起诉指控:被告人潘良利用担任国务院办公厅秘书二局助理政务专员、副局长、局长,国有重点大型企业监事会主席,国务院国有资产监督管理委员会副部长级干部等职务上的便利,为他人谋取利益,以及利用本人职权或者地位形成的便利条件,通过其他国家工作人员职务上的行为,为他人谋取不正当利益,非法收受他人财物,数额特别巨大;离职后,利用原职权或者地位形成的便利条件,通过其他国家工作人员职务上的行为,为他人谋取不正当利益,非法收受他人财物,数额特别巨大,依法应当以受贿罪、利用影响力受贿罪追究其刑事责任。
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
案件将进入审判阶段,法院将依法进行公开审理
Very likely · Within months

After consumers purchase insured services when sending express delivery, they have disputes with the express delivery company over the compensation standard when the goods are damaged. Express delivery companies lower compensation based on depreciation and other factors, while consumers believe that the insured price should be fully compensated. Experts pointed out that complex price protection rules, difficulty in providing evidence and vague compensation standards are the root causes of disputes. They suggested that the loss determination mechanism should be clarified and consumer education should be strengthened.

The Supreme People's Court, the People's Bank of China, the State Administration of Financial Supervision, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly released six typical cases on the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and investors, covering financial lending, fund management, digital finance, personal insurance, securities investment and other fields, focusing on hot topics such as format clauses, fair transactions, suitability obligations, rights relief, and diversified dispute resolution, demonstrating the value of financial trials in guiding the high-quality development of the industry.

The State Administration for Market Regulation revised the draft Food Safety Law and adjusted the fines for small violations from fixed amounts to multiples to solve the problem of "heavy fines for small violations" and reflect the concept that law enforcement must be both strong and warm.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberation of the Constitutional Court for more than 300 days because they did not meet the "10 plus 9" threshold. After the judgment, they still issued negative legal opinions with the title of justice. Scholars Zhang Jiayin and Su Yantu pointed out that this behavior violated the ethics of judges and weakened the authority of the Constitutional Court. They warned that if it continues for a long time, it will affect its final judgment function.

Constitutional Court Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the review because they believed that the composition of the five-member court was illegal. However, after the judgment, they still issued legal opinions in the name of the justices arguing that the judgment was invalid. They contradicted the official judgment, causing confusion among the people and shaking judicial credibility. They also warned that if it became a routine, it would undermine judicial consistency standards and procedural justice.

The three chief justices of the Constitutional Court, Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei, refused to participate in the review for more than 300 days because they did not meet the legal review threshold. However, they later issued a "disagreeing legal opinion" in their own name and published it in "Taiwan Lawyer" and authorized Legal Source Legal Network to collect royalties. At the same time, they still used judicial terms such as the title of justice and "this seat", which triggered a controversy over judicial ethics and copyright property rights. Judicial circles have reported and requested investigation.