Xinhuanet, Beijing, November 25, New Media Special News. Recently, the procuratorial organs have investigated and dealt with violations of laws and disciplines by environmental protection and related departments in Jurong City, Jiangsu Province and Haiyan County, Zhejiang Province. Among these cases, corruption cases in the environmental protection system have attracted attention from all walks of life. When topics such as smog siege and water and soil pollution have repeatedly pierced the nerves of the public, the public has greater expectations for environmental supervision and law enforcement agencies. However, the law enforcers have become the "protective umbrella" of the offenders, and the "cat and mouse" have become a family. How can they still keep the bottom line of the rule of law and guard the clear water and blue sky?

Environmental protection corruption cases frequently occur 　Environmental protection departments in many places staged "a family of cats and mice"

Under the strong anti-corruption storm of the central government, corruption cases in the environmental protection field have been exposed from time to time. A few days ago, Jurong City Procuratorate of Jurong City, Jiangsu Province, was prosecuted by the Jurong City Procuratorate for accepting bribes for allegedly accepting bribes of 1.31 million yuan during the declaration process of subsidy projects such as the shutdown of polluting enterprises. In the past year, Jurong City has filed and investigated 9 cases of duty-related crimes and 10 people in the environmental protection law enforcement and related special fund approval links, involving public officials from various departments such as environmental protection, development and reform commissions, and finance. Public officials.

The Haiyan County Environmental Protection Bureau of Zhejiang Province was also exposed to corruption cases before. Since the beginning of this year, a total of 6 people from the Haiyan County Environmental Protection Bureau have been investigated, including former director Zhu Xiaofang and deputy director Pan Naifeng, all suspected of embezzlement, bribery, and solicitation of bribes. Among them, during his tenure as deputy director of the Haiyan County Environmental Protection Bureau from 2007 to early 2014, Pan Naifeng took advantage of his position to accept bribes totaling RMB 330,000. Currently, this case has entered judicial proceedings.

In 2013, the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate opened a total of 133 major cases in the environmental protection field, involving environmental protection, land, economic and information commissions, water conservancy, taxation, quality inspection and other departments. Including 1 cadre at the department level, 20 cadres at the division level, and 8 directors of the district and county environmental protection bureaus.

Also in 2013, the Guangdong Provincial Procuratorate investigated and dealt with a number of typical cases of job-related crimes endangering the ecological environment. Duty crimes committed by the staff of relevant departments have caused serious consequences such as the destruction of large areas of land, the pollution of main rivers, the passage of a large number of vehicles with excessive exhaust gas, and the stolen mining of mineral resources.

Beginning with environmental protection corruption methods: environmental assessment, acceptance, and law enforcement "run and leak"

Sorting out these cases, it is not difficult to find that environmental protection corruption cases are mainly concentrated in three aspects: environmental impact assessment, environmental protection project approval, and supervision and law enforcement:

Environmental protection evaluation "open one eye, close one eye". The former director of Guangning County Environmental Protection Bureau of Zhaoqing Ouyang Jie and deputy director Peng Guanghua violated national regulations and abused their powers. They passed the review and approved the Guangning County Lianhe Changhui Metal Products Factory to engage in electroplating and metal processing projects without authorization. Ouyang Jie and Peng Guanghua violated relevant regulations when the electroplating production equipment constructed by the plant seriously exceeded the design scale of the environmental impact report, and agreed to the completion acceptance of the plant. The factory's long-term violation of direct sewage discharge caused abnormal cyanide in the water quality of the Manshui River, which caused serious pollution, and had a serious impact on the domestic water of downstream residents, causing huge economic losses. Tan Wanliang, party secretary of Jiangtun Town, Guangning County, and Lv Qihua, deputy mayor of Lianhe Town, Guangning County, coordinated the factory’s unqualified environmental assessment and accepted bribes from Mai Ruizhong, the contractor of the factory.

The acceptance of the project has "silly". Chen Bingrong, Chief of the Supervision Unit of Qujiang District Environmental Protection Bureau, Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, accepted bribes from the company during the acceptance of the relocation and construction project of Qujiang Shengzhao Mining Co., Ltd., and failed to accept the construction project as required, so that the contract operator Zheng Mouxiong later The others discharged the production wastewater directly to the Beijiang River through a private concealed pipe, which caused a major environmental pollution accident in which the lead concentration in the river water exceeded the standard.

Environmental law enforcement "takes the card and asks for it". Xu, the head of the Environmental Supervision Brigade of the Jurong Environmental Protection Bureau, was arrested after the case was arrested. He confessed that he took advantage of his position, accepted bribes, and sought illegitimate benefits for supervising companies. Xu said that from 2006 to the beginning of 2014, he illegally received 99 items of property from more than 20 supervised companies, with a total value of more than 200,000 yuan.

It is understood that in addition to walking through the scene during law enforcement, some of these captured environmental law enforcement officers also reported to companies on surprise inspections by higher-level agencies and formed a "community of interest" with illegal companies.

Tighten the system cage 　 prevent the "realization" of the public power of the supervisory authority

The prosecutor who investigated the environmental protection corruption case in Jurong, Jiangsu said, “The environmental administrative law enforcement process is all run in a relatively closed space, and there is no effective external supervision. Therefore, front-line law enforcement officers have greater discretion to penalize environmental pollution violations. In addition, in the application of environmental protection special subsidy funds, the relevant management regulations are too broad, and involve multiple departments such as environmental protection and the National Development and Reform Commission, and regulations on project application conditions, approval, appropriation procedures, and supervision channels, methods, responsible entities, and accountability mechanisms for the use of funds. None of it is clear enough."

Zhang Sining, a researcher at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, believes that some illegal companies have paid bribes to environmental protection system officials in order to save pollution control costs and defraud environmental protection subsidies. Over time, the two sides formed a stable relationship of benefit transmission. "The important reason is the lack of effective restraint on power and the lack of supervision of law enforcement. Some people who hold power will exchange their power in exchange for money and other material benefits."

Zhang Sining believes that the supervision of law enforcement should be strengthened and the system cage should be tightened. By improving the supervision of discipline inspection organs, mass supervision, and public opinion supervision, the unhealthy trends of the "cat and mouse family" are curbed. "Corruption cases in the field of environmental protection have their particularities. Enterprises secretly pollute the environment. Obviously, as long as the public reporting channels are unblocked, the competent department is strictly investigated for malfeasance, and the accountability mechanism is strengthened, the possibility of enterprises and regulators forming a community of interests can be effectively reduced. ."

Peng Tao, an associate professor at the School of Administrative Law of Northwest University of Political Science and Law, believes that third-party monitoring mechanisms, such as environmental assessments, should be introduced to involve the public or social intermediary organizations to prevent corruption. In terms of the system, in addition to the supervision of the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Procuratorate, there is also a lack of detailed supervision, such as how to prevent corruption in some key links such as bidding, etc. The system is actually lacking. "Supervision should be omni-directional, without leaving blind spots, and should be meticulous and systematic."

Peng Tao said that a regular random inspection system for law enforcement officers should also be established. Regular random inspections of law enforcement personnel, once found that staff members received gifts in the course of performing official duties, we must resolutely investigate and deal with them. At the same time, establish a return visit system for law enforcement to understand whether the law enforcement procedures of law enforcement officers are legal, whether they are civilized law enforcement, whether there are violations of law and discipline such as using power for personal gain, eating cards, etc. (Reporter Sun Renbin, Zhu Guoliang, Liang Aiping, Wu Yanting)

Original Title: China Cyber ​​Affairs: Frequent Environmental Corruption Cases Are Frequent