Volume 3,Issue 9
The Dilemma of Refunding Illegal Fiduciary Fees and the Construction of Adjudication Strategies
Disputes over the return of fees caused by unlawful entrustment appear frequently in judicial practice. Proper handling of such disputes is crucial to the coordination of a rule-of-law society and a humanistic society. Based on an empirical analysis of judgment documents from paid retainer fee return cases and literature analysis, it is found that there are significant differences in how judges, lawyers, and the public attribute responsibility for retainer fees. Judicial decision paths are diverse, with the advantages and disadvantages of each path intertwined. It is difficult to take into account both legal effects and social effects. Given the above practical dilemmas, and based on the results of empirical research combined with theoretical study and analyses, this essay proposes solutions for different types of unlawful cases from the perspectives of legislative basis, legal application, the parties’ subjective malice, and social harm. This approach aims to achieve a balance between a society based on the rule of law and a humanistic society.
[1] Chen G, 2020, Private Law Characterization and Judicial Regulation of “Paid Entrustment. CUPL, 2020(6): 162.
[2] Mao H, 2020, The Legal Nature Determination and Judicial Path Selection of the Please-Ask Issue. Application of Law, 2020(2): 63.
[3] Yang Y, 2023, The Dilemma of Payment for Illegal Cause and Rule Construction. Jiao Tong Law Review, 2023(3): 134.
[4] Zhang H, 2018, Civil Law Regulation of Entrustment Relationship. Jurists Review, 2018(2): 61.
[5] Li T, Wang Z, 2024, Civil Law Regulation and Judicial Approach to Requesting Admission through Connections: A Study Based on 223 Judgments. Government and the Rule of Law, 2024(12): 82.
[6] Hong X, 2003, On Unlawful Consideration Payment. Hebei Law Science, 2003(3), 36.
[7] Li Y, Li W, 2016, On the Institutional Construction of Unlawful Obligations. Politics and Law, 2016(10): 109.
[8] Tan Q, 2004, Payment for Illegal Cause and its System Construction. Modern Law Science, 2004(3): 131.
[9] Xu D, 2016, On the Recovery of Profits after Contractual Invalidity or Infringement - Also Discussing the Legal Regulation of Fraudulent Acts. Tsinghua Law Review, 2016(2): 74.
[10] Wu Z, 2021, Proportional Allocation of Unjust Enrichment Return for Invalid and Void Contracts - Focus on Shareholding Proxy Arrangement. Chinese and Foreign Law Journal, 2021(3): 606.
[11] Tong W, 2009, Criminal Analysis of Fraudulent Illegal Payment of Property and Benefits. Journal of Shantou University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2009(1): 60.
[12] Gao F, 2022, On the Return Rules for Unlawful Gratuitous Payments - Based on an Empirical Study of 92 Cases. Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, 2022(1): 49.
[13] Qiu S, 2013, On the Impact of Victim’s Unlawful Payments on the Establishment of Fraud. Politics and Law, 2013(3): 146.
[14] Huang C, 2023, Criminal Evaluation of the Act of Deceiving Illegitimate Donative Items. Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences Edition), 2023(3): 43.