Fujian: Rogue intermediaries shatter the dream of employment abroad

Fujian: Rogue intermediaries shatter the dream of employment abroad Although the world economy has been weak in recent years, there are still many people in China who want to "dig for gold" abroad...

Although the world economy has been weak in recent years, there are still many people in China who want to "dig for gold" abroad. In order to save trouble and convenience, some people blindly trust the middleman and hand over the money directly to the middleman without entering into a written entrustment contract. In the end, not only is time wasted, but money may also be lost in vain.

On the 21st, the Jiaocheng District Court of Fujian Province revealed that it had recently pronounced a case of this kind. It hopes to serve as a reference for those who are eager to work abroad, and reminds people who want to work abroad to find formal intermediaries.

Entrust an intermediary to handle the procedures for employment abroad

According to the hospital, Xie and Chen were old friends from the same hometown. During the Spring Festival in 2011, they met and talked about employment abroad. Chen said that he knew a person named Wang who was accompanying him in Singapore and could apply for approval to go abroad to engage in performing arts. Xie learned that he immediately asked Chen to help inquire about the fees required to apply for the approval.

> After Chen asked, he was told that each person needed 35,000 yuan. When Xie's other two friends heard about this, they expressed that they also wanted to go abroad.

The three people told Chen about their idea and hoped to reduce the amount. After Chen and Wang bargained, they told Xie that each person needed 32,000 yuan, but before going through the formalities, each person had to pay 5,000 yuan.

One week after the three people paid 15,000 yuan in advance to Chen, Chen informed him that the approval document had arrived, and then handed over the remaining 81,000 yuan to Chen. Chen immediately gave Xie three approval documents written in English, and told him that they could go directly to Singapore with the approval documents and their own passports, and work in the performing arts company indicated on the approval document.

84,000 yuan in exchange for three fake approval documents

Xie and others were so happy that they immediately bought tickets to Singapore. However, something unexpected happened. Just two days later, Chen called and told Xie that something had happened to the company and the three of them could not go for the time being. He asked them to refund their tickets first and wait a week for a new approval.

A week later, the new approval document was not issued. Xie became suspicious and checked the three original approval documents with the Singapore Ministry of Labor through friends in Singapore. The reply said that they were fake.

After learning the truth, Xie asked Chen for refunds many times. In March 2011, Chen refunded 12,000 yuan to Xie, claiming that the money was originally reserved for them to apply for insurance, and the remaining 84,000 yuan had been remitted to Wang. In anger, Xie took Chen to court.

The court ruled that the intermediary was responsible for repayment

The Jiaocheng court held that: Xie and Wang had never met, and all matters related to overseas employment were handled through Chen, and the remittance was also remitted by Chen to Wang, so the entrustment contract relationship between Xie and Chen was established. However, the contract between Xie and Chen violated the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and was an invalid contract.

Article 1 of the "Notice of the State Council on Strengthening the Management of Entry-Exit Intermediary Activities" stipulates that "Anyone who engages in intermediary activities such as providing information services, legal consultation and assistance in applying for visas and overseas contacts and arrangements for settling abroad, visiting relatives, friends, inheriting property, studying abroad, employment and other non-official activities must be reported to the relevant departments of the people's government of the province (autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government) for review and approval, and shall be reported to the relevant departments of the State Council for approval. The business license issued by the relevant department must be registered with the industrial and commercial administration department." Article 5 stipulates that "entry and exit intermediaries must strictly abide by national laws, regulations and relevant policies, and shall not operate beyond their scope, and shall not entrust other institutions or individuals to act as agents for relevant business." Chen has no intermediary qualifications to handle employment abroad for others and violated the above regulations. Therefore, the contract between Xie and Chen is invalid. According to legal provisions, the main legal consequences of an invalid contract are as follows: (1) Return of property, that is, after the signing of an invalid contract, if one party obtains property from the other party, it shall return it to the other party; if it cannot be returned or there is no need to return it, it shall be compensated at a discount. (2) Compensation for losses, that is, if the invalid contract causes losses to the parties, the party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses; if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibilities. Since Xie only asked Chen to return 84,000 yuan, it was well-founded in law and the court supported it.

Being deceived is mostly related to irregular contracts

It is a good thing to go abroad for employment. In this case, it is handled by a private person without even a formal written agreement. The handling fees and the amount of the intermediary commission are mixed together. This not only brings trouble to the judge, but also The money paid by consumers may not be recovered; some may find intermediaries to handle the matter, but the contracts concluded are extremely simple. The services provided by the intermediaries, the specific components of fees, processing deadlines, refunds for breach of contract, etc. are not clearly stipulated. Once there are objections, consumers cannot protect their rights and interests based on such contracts. The judge reminded those who want to work abroad to find a formal and qualified intermediary agency, and the terms of the entrustment contract should also be clear.