Are there any successful cases of domestic labor dispatch?

Case: Defendant Lin Lin (pseudonym). Defendant Zhou Hui (pseudonym). At the end of 200 1 year, the defendant Lin privately engraved the seal of "Jurong Consulting Office of Zhenjiang Jingkou Overseas Labor Service Co., Ltd." and recruited 8 laborers in Jurong to go to Malaysia in the name of the consulting office. Because Malaysia did not have the qualification for exporting labor services, and Malaysia did not open the general labor market to China (the confessions of the two defendants were only known after the incident), Lin Lin met the defendant Zhou Hui through others' introduction and asked him to help with the travel passport and other related matters. Zhou Hui agreed and passed a salesman of Zhenjiang Oriental Travel Company. After paying the relevant formalities (the defendant Zhou Hui's company also charged a handling fee of 200 yuan for each person), he issued an invoice to the travel company to pay for traveling abroad, and successfully applied for a travel passport with the invoice. Then Liang, a Guangzhou Ocean International Tourism Company, applied for a tourist visa for the laborers and bought an exit ticket. Finally, the defendant Lin Lin sent eight laborers to Malaysia in the name of tourism, and Li of that country was responsible for the specific resettlement after arrival. Among these labor exporters, the defendant Lin Lin * * * charged the labor personnel fee 163800 yuan. Among them, Guangzhou Liang visa and air ticket booking fee is 24,000 yuan, Li154,000 yuan, and labor service payment 14000 yuan. During this period, the defendant Zhou Hui, as the general manager of Zhenjiang Zhiyuan International Technology and Talent Consulting Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhiyuan Company), registered and established Jurong Office of Zhiyuan Company on June 5438+1October 8, 2002, and officially hired the defendant Lin Lin as the director of the office. June 5438+October 2002 10, the defendant Lin Zhiyuan directly recruited six laborers to Malaysia in Jurong in the name of Jurong Office. Similarly, because Zhiyuan Company did not have the qualification of exporting labor services, the defendants Zhou Hui and Linlin used the same method as last time to send the six laborers to Malaysia. Later, the defendant Lin Lin in Malaysia learned that for the first batch of eight laborers sent to Malaysia, Mary did not fully implement the work according to the contract, and some of the implemented work benefits were far lower than the contract, and they failed to obtain the work permits necessary for legal work. However, the defendant Lin Lin still asked the eight workers to say that they had lived and worked well in Malaysia and took them back to China for publicity. In March 2002, the defendants Lin Lin and Zhou Hui used the same method and means to transport four laborers to Malaysia in the name of Jurong Office of Zhiyuan Company. Defendants Lin Lin and Zhou Hui charged the two groups of laborers a total of RMB 265,438+RMB 3,000. Among them, the defendant Lin paid Guangzhou Liang a tourist visa to buy a plane ticket for 30,000 yuan, paid Li more than 65,438 yuan +0.6 million yuan, and got his own money10.7 million yuan. Zhiyuan company failed to make a profit. From April to June, 2002, the defendant Zhou Hui recruited nine laborers in Danyang to go to Malaysia in the name of "Zhiyuan Company", and * * * collected 242,600 yuan for the laborers' fees. The company kept part of the handling fee (about 1.34 million yuan), and all the rest were remitted to the accounts of Lin and Liang in Guangzhou through the company's finance for visa application, air ticket booking and remittance to Ma. In the same period, the defendant Zhou Hui also entrusted Qingdao Overseas Personnel Service Company to recruit 10 laborers from Malaysia, and Zhiyuan Company paid Lin Lin more than 230,000 yuan in advance to send the 10 laborers to Malaysia. After defendants Lin Lin and Zhou Hui sent 37 laborers to work in Malaysia five times, Mary felt cheated because he could not get the necessary work permit to work in Malaysia, and found that Malaysian companies with employment contracts did not exist at all. At this time, Li avoided seeing and couldn't contact, and the defendant Linlin couldn't properly solve the matter and control the development of the situation. The workers then sat in the Malaysian Embassy of China and applied for consular protection. The Embassy of China in Malaysia has repeatedly sent urgent telex to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to reflect this matter. After the incident, the defendant Zhou Hui went to Malaysia three times to recall all the laborers and returned some victims with RMB378,000. The public security organ seized the defendant Zhou Hui's money of RMB 6,543,800+0.22 million. [Trial] There were different opinions on how to determine the nature of this case during the trial. The first opinion was that the defendants Lin Lin and Zhou Hui, knowing that Zhiyuan Company did not have the qualification to export foreign-related labor services, still used generous treatment as bait to recruit laborers to work in Malaysia and sent them abroad by applying for tourist visas. Objectively, it has the behavior of concealing the truth of illegal labor export, subjectively, it has the intention of illegally occupying the money of laborers, which constitutes the crime of fraud. The second opinion is that the actions of the defendants Lin Lin and Zhou Hui do not constitute the crime of ordinary fraud, but constitute the crime of contract fraud. The reason is that in the process of sending laborers to Malaysia, victims are defrauded of money by signing contracts. This not only violates the ownership of public and private property, but also violates the object of economic contract management order. In this case, Zhiyuan Company is a legally established limited liability company with legal personality, which should constitute a unit crime. The third opinion is that this case should be mainly identified as the crime of illegal business operation committed by Zhiyuan Company. Some people think that the defendant Lin Lin illegally exported eight laborers for the first time, which can be regarded as the unit behavior of Zhiyuan Company.