“用公开促公正 建设核心价值”主题教育活动

拖欠劳动报酬典型案例

目录

1.王凤生拒不支付农民工工资案

2.徐成海拒不支付劳动报酬案

一、王凤生拒不支付农民工工资案

（一）基本案情

2010年6月，葫芦岛某建筑工程有限公司（简称某建筑公司）与某某集团签订合同，由某建筑公司负责承建葫芦岛市龙港区某小区其中六栋住宅楼的工程。被告人王凤生作为某建筑公司该公司项目负责人承建该小区15号楼的施工工程。王凤生先后找到刘某（力工）、岳某某（放线工人）、乔某某（散水工人）、田某某（水暖工人）、满某某（抹灰、砌砖工人）、于某某（外墙保温）等人，随即开始施工。该工程于2011年10月交工，期间某建筑公司负责人宋某某多次以现金、转账等方式将工程款支付给王凤生20余笔，总金额达230万余元。在工程结束后，王凤生便更换电话号码失去联系，工人多次寻找王凤生，王凤生均以“现在手里没钱”、“甲方未结账”等言辞推脱工人，拒绝支付工资，后王凤生在给个别工人打下欠条后便再次失去联系。因某某集团与某建筑公司（王凤生承建的15号楼工程）无法结算，为此某某集团于2013年1月16日将上述情况公告于葫芦岛日报，但因未找到王凤生，造成工程无法结算。经龙港区劳动监察大队核实，王凤生共拖欠工人工资达50余万元。2014年1月13日，龙港区人力资源和社会保障局劳动监察大队向某建筑公司下达了《劳动保障监察责令改正决定书》责令其支付工资，1月22日某建筑公司先后分别支付刘某、于某某工资款10万元和5万元。被告人王凤生被抓获后对其通过更换电话号码、推脱等方式将工程款以隐匿、转移，拒不支付劳动者劳动报酬的犯罪事实供认不讳，但对欠款数额存在异议，后经过王凤生与上述工人逐一核对账目，欠刘某178500元（某建筑公司已支付10万元），欠岳某某10000元，欠乔某某4000元，欠田某某30000元，欠满某某60000元，欠于某某65000元（某建筑公司已支付5万元），应欠劳动者工资共计34，7500元。2014年12月，葫芦岛某建筑公司将此款全部支付。

（二）裁判结果

葫芦岛市龙港区人民法院经审理认为，被告人王凤生作为某建筑公司名下的项目负责人是工人工资发放的实际主体，在收到工程款后逃匿、拒不支付拖欠的工人工资，龙港区人力资源和社会保障局劳动监察大队对某建筑公司已下发并送达《劳动保障监察责令改正决定书》，被告人王凤生作为某建筑公司的项目负责人，因其逃匿行为导致某建筑公司在收到责令改正决定书后无法找到被告人王凤生，应视为该决定书已经对被告人王凤生送达。被告人王凤生以逃匿的方式逃避支付劳动者的劳动报酬，数额较大，经政府有关部门责令支付仍不支付，构成拒不支付劳动报酬罪，公诉机关指控正确，应予确认。鉴于被告人王凤生自愿认罪，在提起公诉前已经由某建筑公司支付工人工资，可以从轻处罚。依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百七十六条之一、第五十二条的规定，判决被告人王凤生犯拒不支付劳动报酬罪，判处有期徒刑一年六个月，并处罚金人民币十万元。

（三）典型意义

一段时期以来，部分地方用工单位拒不支付劳动者的劳动报酬的现象比较突出，广大劳动者、特别是农民工成为了拒不支付劳动报酬行为的主要受害者。《刑法修正案（八）》增设拒不支付劳动报酬罪。各级法院高度重视运用法律手段惩治拒不支付劳动报酬行为，认真贯彻执行拒不支付劳动报酬罪的规定。依法惩治拒不支付劳动报酬犯罪，对于维护劳动者的合法权益，促进社会和谐稳定发挥了重要作用。

二、徐成海拒不支付劳动报酬案

（一）基本案情

1999年被告人徐成海与林殿杰、崔淑霞投资成立吉林市金马实业有限责任公司，主营日用百货等批发零售。被告人徐成海为对外投资，于2008年10月22日与张建军投资注册成立吉林市大德投资有限公司，两公司法定代表人均为被告人徐成海。

2008年11月，蛟河市盛财煤矿投资人冷淑奎找被告人徐成海为其煤矿投资。同年11月18日，冷淑奎作为甲方蛟河市盛财煤矿法人代表，徐成海代表大德投资有限公司作为乙方，大德公司的股东张建军作为丙方，三方签订《合作协议书》，由甲方以整合后的蛟河市盛财煤矿及全部固定资产和大型设备、材料出资，乙方、丙方出资1，200万元，对盛财煤矿改造和开采。利润按甲方47%，乙方45%，丙方8%比例分配，合作期限为自乙、丙方第一笔资金到位之日起至本矿区域内资源枯竭停采止。

2011年5月16日，三方签订《解除合作协议书》，甲方和丙方放弃了盛财煤矿，由乙方大德公司独自经营，乙方补偿给甲方1万吨原煤及现金30万元，如两年内甲方不能拉足1万吨原煤，煤矿所有权归甲乙双方。2011年12月拖欠侯建锋、张广秋等174名工人工资33.9万余元，由市财政借款发放给工人29万余元（有部分工人未来领取）。2012年8月，蛟河市劳动监察大队责令其支付拖欠的工人工资，徐成海采取逃匿的方式拒不支付工人工资。

2011年5月至2012年年末，被告人徐成海经营的吉林市大德投资有限公司和吉林市金马实业有限责任公司，拖欠公司员工林殿杰、张扬、梁志强、孙明研等11人的工资38万余元。2013年3月28日，吉林市劳动监察支队责令其支付拖欠的工人工资，徐成海采取逃匿的方式拒不支付工人工资。

（二）裁判结果

吉林省蛟河市人民法院经审理认为，被告人徐成海采取逃匿的方式拒不支付其实际经营蛟河市盛财煤矿期间拖欠的工人工资和其作为法定代表人的吉林市大德投资有限公司和吉林市金马实业有限责任公司职工工资，数额较大，经劳动监察机关责令支付仍不支付，其行为已构成拒不支付劳动报酬罪。依照刑法有关规定，判决被告人徐成海犯拒不支付劳动报酬罪，判处有期徒刑一年，并处罚金人民币七万元。

（三）典型意义

拖欠农民工工资问题一度成为社会关注的热点，刑法修正案八将“拒不支付劳动报酬罪”写进刑法，经过几年的打击，取得了很大成效，但该类犯罪还时有发生。做为一名企业的经营者应当合法经营、诚信经营，当企业经营出现困难时，要正确面对，妥善解决，而不能采取逃避的方式进行处理。本案被告人由于经营不善导致亏损，却逃之夭夭，导致大批劳动者的劳动报酬无法兑现，数额较大，其行为构成拒不支付劳动报酬罪，但尚未造成严重后果。依据刑法第276条之一规定，应当判处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或者单处罚金。本案对被告人判处有期徒刑的同时判处罚金，彰显刑法的打击力度。

Theme Education Activity on "Promoting Justice and Building Core Values through Openness"

Typical Cases of Delayed Labor Remuneration

catalogue

1. Case of Wang Fengsheng Refusing to Pay Migrant Workers' Wages

2. Xu Chenghai's Refusal to Pay Labor Remuneration Case

1、 Case of Wang Fengsheng Refusing to Pay Migrant Workers' Wages

（1） Basic facts of the case

In June 2010, a construction company in Huludao signed a contract with a certain group to undertake the construction of six residential buildings in a community in Longgang District, Huludao City. The defendant Wang Fengsheng, as the project leader of a certain construction company, undertook the construction project of Building 15 in the residential area. Wang Fengsheng successively found Liu (mechanical worker), Yue (laying worker), Qiao (loose water worker), Tian (plumbing worker), Man (plastering and bricklaying worker), Yu (external wall insulation worker) and others, and immediately began construction. The project was completed in October 2011, during which Song, the person in charge of a construction company, paid more than 20 payments to Wang Fengsheng in cash, transfer, and other ways, with a total amount of over 2.3 million yuan. After the completion of the project, Wang Fengsheng changed his phone number and lost contact. The workers searched for Wang Fengsheng multiple times, but Wang Fengsheng evaded the workers with words such as "I don't have any money now" and "Party A hasn't settled the bill", refusing to pay the salary. Later, Wang Fengsheng lost contact again after writing IOUs to some workers. Due to the inability to settle between a certain group and a certain construction company (the 15th building project undertaken by Wang Fengsheng), a certain group announced the above situation in Huludao Daily on January 16, 2013. However, due to the inability to locate Wang Fengsheng, the project was unable to be settled. According to the verification of the Longgang District Labor Supervision Brigade, Wang Fengsheng has owed workers over 500000 yuan in wages. On January 13, 2014, the Labor Supervision Brigade of Longgang District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau issued a "Decision on Labor and Social Security Supervision Order to Correct" to a construction company, ordering them to pay wages. On January 22, a construction company paid Liu and Yu salaries of 100000 yuan and 50000 yuan respectively. After being arrested, the defendant Wang Fengsheng confessed to the criminal fact that he concealed and transferred the project payment by changing his phone number, evading payment, and refusing to pay the labor remuneration of the workers. However, there were objections to the amount owed. After Wang Fengsheng checked and reconciled with the above-mentioned workers one by one, he owed Liu 178500 yuan (a construction company had already paid 100000 yuan), Yue 10000 yuan, Qiao 4000 yuan, and Tian 30000 yuan, I owe a total of 60000 yuan to XXX and 65000 yuan to XXX (a construction company has already paid 50000 yuan), and I owe a total of 347500 yuan in wages to my employees. In December 2014, a construction company in Huludao fully paid this amount.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Longgang District, Huludao City found that the defendant Wang Fengsheng, as the project leader under the name of a certain construction company, was the actual subject of workers' wages payment. After receiving the project payment, he fled and refused to pay the overdue wages of workers. The Labor Supervision Brigade of Longgang District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau issued and delivered the "Labor Security Supervision Order to Correct Decision" to a certain construction company, The defendant Wang Fengsheng, as the project leader of a certain construction company, was unable to find the defendant Wang Fengsheng due to his hiding behavior after receiving the order to correct the situation. It should be considered that the decision has been delivered to the defendant Wang Fengsheng. The defendant, Wang Fengsheng, evaded payment of labor remuneration to the workers through hiding, and the amount was relatively large. Despite being ordered by relevant government departments to pay, the defendant still did not pay, which constitutes the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. The prosecution's charges are correct and should be confirmed. Given that the defendant Wang Fengsheng voluntarily pleaded guilty and had already been paid the wages of workers by a certain construction company before the prosecution, a lighter punishment could be imposed. According to Article 276-1 and Article 52 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Wang Fengsheng was convicted of refusing to pay labor remuneration and sentenced to one year and six months in prison, with a fine of RMB 100000.

（3） Typical significance

For a period of time, the phenomenon of some local employers refusing to pay workers' labor remuneration has been quite prominent, and the majority of workers, especially migrant workers, have become the main victims of refusing to pay labor remuneration. The Criminal Law Amendment (8) added the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. Courts at all levels attach great importance to using legal means to punish those who refuse to pay labor remuneration, and conscientiously implement the provisions on the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. Punishing the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration in accordance with the law has played an important role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers and promoting social harmony and stability.

2、 Case of Xu Chenghai Refusing to Pay Labor Remuneration

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 1999, the defendant Xu Chenghai invested with Lin Dianjie and Cui Shuxia to establish Jilin Jinma Industrial Co., Ltd., which mainly engages in wholesale and retail of daily necessities. The defendant Xu Chenghai made an external investment and registered Jilin Dade Investment Co., Ltd. with Zhang Jianjun on October 22, 2008. The legal representatives of both companies are the defendant Xu Chenghai.

In November 2008, Leng Shukui, an investor in Shengcai Coal Mine in Jiaohe City, approached the defendant Xu Chenghai to invest in his coal mine. On November 18 of the same year, Leng Shukui served as the legal representative of the first party, Jiaohe Shengcai Coal Mine, Xu Chenghai represented Dade Investment Co., Ltd. as the second party, and Dade Company's shareholder Zhang Jianjun as the third party. The three parties signed a "Cooperation Agreement", with the first party contributing 12 million yuan to the renovation and mining of the Shengcai Coal Mine in Jiaohe City, along with all fixed assets and large equipment and materials. The profit shall be distributed at a ratio of 47% to Party A, 45% to Party B, and 8% to Party C. The cooperation period shall be from the date of the first payment of funds by Party B and Party C to the cessation of resource depletion in the mining area.

On May 16, 2011, the three parties signed a "Termination of Cooperation Agreement", in which Party A and Party C abandoned Shengcai Coal Mine and operated it solely by Party B's Dade Company. Party B compensated Party A with 10000 tons of raw coal and 300000 yuan in cash. If Party A cannot fully purchase 10000 tons of raw coal within two years, the ownership of the coal mine belongs to both parties. In December 2011, more than 339000 yuan of wages were owed to 174 workers, including Hou Jianfeng and Zhang Guangqiu. The municipal government borrowed and distributed more than 290000 yuan to the workers (some of whom will receive them in the future). In August 2012, the Jiaohe City Labor Supervision Brigade ordered him to pay the unpaid wages of workers, but Xu Chenghai refused to pay the wages of workers by hiding.

From May 2011 to the end of 2012, the defendant Xu Chenghai operated Jilin Dade Investment Co., Ltd. and Jilin Jinma Industrial Co., Ltd., which owed more than 380000 yuan in wages to 11 employees of the company, including Lin Dianjie, Zhang Yang, Liang Zhiqiang, and Sun Mingyan. On March 28, 2013, the Labor Supervision Detachment of Jilin City ordered it to pay the unpaid wages of workers, and Xu Chenghai refused to pay the wages of workers by hiding.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Jiaohe City, Jilin Province found that the defendant Xu Chenghai refused to pay the wages owed to the workers during his actual operation of the Shengcai Coal Mine in Jiaohe City, as well as the wages of the employees of Jilin Dade Investment Co., Ltd. and Jilin Jinma Industrial Co., Ltd. who were legal representatives, in a large amount. Despite being ordered by the labor supervision authority to pay, he still did not pay. His behavior has constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the defendant Xu Chenghai was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of RMB 70000 for refusing to pay labor remuneration.

（3） Typical significance

The issue of defaulting on the wages of migrant workers has once become a hot topic of social concern. Amendment 8 of the Criminal Law includes the crime of "refusing to pay labor remuneration" in the criminal law. After several years of crackdown, great achievements have been made, but such crimes still occur from time to time. As a business operator, one should operate legally and with integrity. When difficulties arise in business operations, one should face them correctly and solve them properly, rather than resort to evasive methods. The defendant in this case suffered losses due to poor management, but fled, resulting in a large number of workers' labor remuneration being unable to be paid, and the amount was relatively large. His behavior constitutes the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration, but has not yet caused serious consequences. According to Article 276-1 of the Criminal Law, a person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, and shall also, or shall only, be fined. This case sentenced the defendant to fixed-term imprisonment while also imposing a fine, demonstrating the crackdown of the criminal law.