Recently, a lawyer explained the case online, saying: "I once received stolen money from fraudsters for lawyer's fees and was asked by the public security organ to return them, but in the end, I did not refund the lawyer's fees because the lawyer's fees were obtained in good faith."
The receipt of stolen money for attorney fees is obtained in good faith, but the merchant receives the stolen money but the bank card is frozen
The lawyer represents the fraudster's case, but the lawyer's fee received is the stolen money obtained by the fraudster. It is the duty of the public security organs to recover illegal gains in accordance with the law, but in the end, what is the reason why the lawyer does not have to return the lawyer's fees?
Originally, the collection of lawyer's fees was obtained in good faith, and when the lawyer collected the lawyer's fees, he did not know that the money was stolen money, and the lawyer also provided the corresponding labor, in this case, the stolen money collected by the lawyer was obtained in good faith, so the lawyer did not need to return the lawyer's fees.
The same is to receive stolen money from fraudsters, and the merchant also received the stolen money without knowing it, and the merchant also provided the corresponding labor, but the merchant's bank card, WeChat, etc. will be frozen.
A proprietress of a flower shop in Guangdong received a flower order from fraudsters, and the fraudsters paid a fee of 52,000 yuan to ask the merchant to make a money bouquet.
Boss Wang, who runs a cake shop in Changsha, Hunan Province, also encountered the same situation, the fraudster lied that he needed a specially customized cake for his wife's birthday surprise, and then the fraudster transferred 40,000 yuan to Boss Wang, and the same Boss Wang was also frozen because he received stolen money, and was told by the public security organ that he was suspected of money laundering.
also received stolen money without knowing it, and also paid the corresponding labor, but the punishment results were different, which caused heated discussions among netizens
On the one hand, there are legal workers, and on the other hand, ordinary merchants, the two have the same incident but the ending is very different, look at the hot comments of netizens:
Netizens in Fujian said: There is still a lot of controversy in practice about whether the stolen money is applicable to bona fide acquisition, and most of them will be forcibly taken away if they are not lawyers
Netizens in Henan questioned whether merchants in other industries received stolen money in good faith: Those who sold mobile phones and opened cigarette hotels were paid with stolen money, resulting in the freezing of the store's bank card
The question is, the boss uses the stolen money to pay the employee's salary, so does the employee's salary need to be recovered
Anhui netizens asked: If it is a repayment, do you need to return it, and the lawyer does not need to repay the legal debt
Write at the end
Legal practitioners should be more aware of the provisions and consequences of the law, and they should be more cautious and responsible in the handling of stolen money. However, the difference in the outcome raises questions about the fairness of the law.
Ordinary merchants may have relatively little knowledge of the law, and it is debatable whether they should bear the same responsibility for receiving stolen money without knowing it.
Everyone is equal before the law and should be subject to the same rules and standards, regardless of status. Differences in the outcome of penalties can lead to a loss of public trust in the law. It is hoped that the relevant departments will give detailed explanations and explanations of this situation, so as to calm the public's doubts and safeguard the fairness and authority of the law.