Sought an agent for overseas work, but lost money instead of earning it.

Compiled from: Jinan Intermediate People's Court
 
"Working abroad, easy job, reaching the peak of life." Attracted by high wages, many people choose to go through agencies for overseas labor, but there are hidden risks such as illegal institutions, irregular operations, and lack of rights protection. Let's look at the following intermediary contract dispute case arising from overseas labor.

 
 

Case review
In November 2022, Wang saw an intermediary advertisement recruiting workers for New Zealand on an online platform and contacted Meng, the head of Company A that posted the ad, about working abroad. In December of the same year, both parties signed an "Entrustment Agreement," stipulating that Company A would provide intermediary services for Wang's overseas labor, including but not limited to introducing or recommending companies with foreign labor cooperation business qualifications, and Company A was only responsible for handling Wang's visa. Wang paid a total of 80,000 yuan in deposits and labor procedure fees to Gu, the supervisor of Company A, who issued a receipt.
 
In May 2023, Company A obtained a work visa for Wang and purchased a flight ticket to New Zealand. After arriving in New Zealand, Wang was dissatisfied with the job provided by Meng, negotiated multiple times, stayed abroad for over ten days, and bought a return ticket to China on his own.
 
Wang believed that Company A was solely established by Meng, Gu and Meng were married, and Gu acted as company supervisor while also collecting intermediary fees, leading to obvious commingling of marital and company assets, making the debt a joint marital debt. He then sued Company A, Meng, and Gu, requesting the return of 80,000 yuan in intermediary fees and compensation of 5,000 yuan for losses.
 
The court ruled that Company A should refund Wang 45,000 yuan in intermediary fees; Meng and Gu bear joint and several liability; and dismissed Wang's other claims. Company A, Meng, and Gu appealed, but the second instance upheld the original judgment, which is now effective.
 
 
[1] Employment Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China
[2] Paragraph 3 of Article 40
[3] Institutions that have not obtained lawful permission and registration shall not engage in job intermediary activities.
 
[4] Provisions on the Administration of Overseas Employment Intermediaries
Article 3
[5] An administrative licensing system is implemented for overseas employment intermediaries. Without approval and registration, no unit or individual may engage in overseas employment intermediary activities.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[6] In this case, the business scope for which Company A obtained administrative licensing did not include overseas employment intermediary activities. The intermediary contract it signed with Wang exceeded its business scope, and its act of introducing Wang to work abroad, engaging in overseas employment intermediary activities, violated the mandatory provisions of the above laws. Therefore, the intermediary contract between Wang and Company A should be deemed invalid, and Company A must return the intermediary fees obtained from Wang. However, Wang failed to verify whether Company A had the qualification for overseas employment activities before signing the contract, and after New Zealand explicitly rejected the job provided by Company A, Wang himself bore some fault.
 
[1] In addition, if the shareholder of a one-person limited liability company cannot prove that the company's property is independent of the shareholder's own property, they shall bear joint liability for the company's debts. In this case, Meng is the sole shareholder of Company A and failed to provide evidence that Company A's property is independent of his personal property. Therefore, he should bear joint liability for Company A's debts. Gu, as the supervisor of Company A, is married to Meng and received the intermediary fees involved on behalf of Company A, thus actually participating in the management and operation of Company A. Consequently, the debts in question constitute joint debts of Meng and Gu, and Gu should bear joint liability.
 
[2] It can be seen that although working overseas may yield higher income, it is more often fraught with pitfalls. Workers must remain vigilant at all times, not believe in windfalls falling from the sky, nor harbor unrealistic illusions about overseas jobs. Staying grounded is the true path.