The scammer pretended to be the leader to ask for a transfer of 250,000 yuan The company's accountant was "confused" and was also sued

Cover news reporter Song Xiao

In recent years, scammers have emerged in an endless stream, and even professionals with work experience will become "fat meat" in the eyes of scammers.

On October 26, the reporter learned from the Chengdu High-tech Court about a labor dispute case, the plaintiff was a furniture company in Sichuan, and the defendant Feng was the accountant and cashier of the company. In June 2020, Feng received a message from a person who claimed to be the leader of the company, asking for the money to be transferred to the account of the furniture company, Feng usually completed the accounting transactions through WeChat, QQ communication, etc., so after approving some information, she transferred 250,000 yuan in the past, this turn, later only to know that she was deceived. Feng was also sued by the company to bear the loss of 250,000 yuan.

Corporate accountants are scammed:

The scammer pretended to be the leader and asked for a transfer of 250,000 yuan

On May 26, 2020, Mr. Feng signed a three-year labor contract with "a Sichuan Trading Company" (hereinafter referred to as the Trading Company), stipulating that Mr. Feng would engage in accounting work for a furniture company in Sichuan.

Although Feng signed a labor contract with a trading company, he also did accounting and cashier work for the furniture company, and the business transactions and accounting transactions in the daily production and operation of the furniture company were mostly completed through WeChat and QQ exchanges.

On June 1, 2020, Feng received a call from the cashier of "Hua Company", saying that because there was a sum of money that needed to be transferred to the furniture company operated by He X, "Hua Company" said that it needed the billing information of the furniture company. Then, a person named "He X - Furniture" (QQ nickname is the same as the nickname of the legal representative of the furniture company) contacted through QQ, claiming that he was now talking with the government leaders, it was inconvenient to call, and asked Feng to contact "Mr. Chen" on his own.

After Feng dialed the "Mr. Chen" phone, the other party said that he would transfer the money to the account of the furniture company within 10 minutes, and "He X - Furniture" informed Feng through QQ that "Mr. Chen" had transferred the money to his private account and sent a screenshot of the transfer to Feng.

After completing the above operations, "He X - Furniture" asked Feng to inquire about the balance of the company's account, and when he learned that there were more than 290,000 yuan, "He X X - Furniture" asked Feng to transfer an urgent payment of 250,000 yuan to the designated account, and Feng found that he was deceived after transferring the money according to the requirements.

As a result, the furniture company sued feng for compensation of 250,000 yuan for property losses, and from June 2, 2020, calculated according to the loan market quotation interest rate announced by the National Interbank Lending Center on the actual compensation date.

The court dismissed the lawsuit:

Should employees be compensated for fraud in performing their duties?

After trial, the high-tech court held that the employee's liability for compensation for the performance of duties should be premised on intentional or gross fault, so it ruled to reject the plaintiff's litigation claim and upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

According to the relevant provisions of the Labor Law and the Labor Contract Law, the circumstances in which the employee bears the liability for damages to the employer are limited to the three situations of illegal termination of the labor contract, violation of the confidentiality obligation in the labor contract, and non-compete restriction, and in this case, Feng did not have the above three statutory circumstances that should be liable for compensation by the employee during the existence of the labor relationship.

At the same time, the judge also reminded enterprises, as the owners of enterprise property, to shoulder the responsibility of supervision and management of their own production and operation activities. Enterprises should establish and improve the internal control system, bear production and operation risks, and should not pass on the losses caused by their own poor management to workers. In this case, the defendant and the plaintiff did not have the above three statutory circumstances during the existence of the labor relationship that should be liable by the employee, and it was made clear through precedent that the employee's liability for compensation for the performance of duties should be based on intentional or major fault, which is conducive to drawing a clear line of responsibility between the enterprise and the employee, guiding the enterprise to standardize the employment rules, building a solid financial risk firewall, effectively preventing new fraudulent means, and avoiding major losses. At the same time, it is clear that employees bear responsibilities corresponding to their benefits within the scope of their performance of duties, and do not bear excessive risks due to their general negligence.

<b>[If you have a news thread, please report to us, once adopted, there is a fee reward.] WeChat attention: ihxdsb, QQ: 3386405712].</b>