Sought an agent for overseas work, but lost money instead of earning it.
Compiled from: Jinan Intermediate People's Court
"Working abroad, easy job, and from then on reaching the pinnacle of life." Attracted by high wages, many people choose to work abroad through intermediaries. However, the process of overseas employment is commonly plagued by hidden risks such as unlicensed agencies, irregular practices, and unprotected rights. Let us examine the following intermediary contract dispute case arising from overseas employment.
Case review
In November 2022, Wang came across an intermediary advertisement on an online platform recruiting workers for employment in New Zealand, and contacted Meng, the person in charge of Company A, which had posted the advertisement, to discuss matters concerning working abroad. In December of the same year, the two parties signed a Letter of Entrustment, agreeing that Company A would provide Wang with intermediary services for overseas labor introduction, including but not limited to introducing or recommending to Wang companies holding qualifications for foreign labor service cooperation, and that Company A would only be responsible for handling Wang's visa. Wang successively paid a total of 80,000 yuan in deposits and labor procedure fees to Gu, the supervisor of Company A, and Company A issued a receipt to him.
In May 2023, Company A arranged 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 and held multiple negotiations with Meng. After being stranded in a foreign country for more than ten days, Wang purchased a ticket and returned to China on his own.
Wang believed that Company A was a company established solely by Meng, that Gu and Meng were spouses, and that Gu, while serving as the company's supervisor, also collected intermediary fees on behalf of the company. The couple's property was clearly commingled with the company's property, and the debt constituted a joint marital debt. Accordingly, Wang sued Company A, Meng, and Gu in court, requesting the return of RMB 80,000 in intermediary fees and RMB 5,000 in damages.
The court, after trial, ruled that Company A shall refund Wang the intermediary fee of 45,000 yuan; Meng and Gu shall bear joint and several liability for the repayment; and Wang's other claims were dismissed. Company A, Meng, and Gu subsequently appealed, and the second-instance trial upheld the original judgment, which has now taken legal effect.
[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
In this case, none of the business scope for which Company A obtained administrative licensing included overseas employment intermediary activities. The intermediary contract it entered into with Wang exceeded its business scope. Its act of introducing Wang to work abroad and engaging in overseas employment intermediary activities violated the mandatory provisions of the aforementioned laws. Therefore, the intermediary contract between Wang and Company A should be invalid, and Company A should return the intermediary fees it obtained as a result to Wang. However, Wang did not verify whether Company A had the qualifications for overseas employment activities before entering into the contract with Company A, and clearly refused the job provided by Company A in New Zealand, so Wang himself bore certain fault.
Furthermore, if a shareholder of a one-person limited liability company cannot prove that the company's property is independent of the shareholder's own property, the shareholder shall bear joint and several liability for the company's debts. In this case, Meng was the sole shareholder of Company A and failed to provide evidence proving that Company A's property was independent of his personal property. Therefore, he should bear joint and several liability for Company A's debts. Gu, as the supervisor of Company A and Meng's spouse, collected the intermediary fee involved in the case on behalf of Company A and actually participated in the operation and management of Company A. Thus, the debt involved in the case constitutes a joint marital debt of Meng and Gu, and Gu should bear joint and several 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.
