Employees encountered online fraud during the performance of their duties, causing huge losses to the company and triggering accountability disputes. The court stated that the establishment of the principle of attribution should focus on the protection of workers. Employers should establish and improve strict management systems, effectively fulfill management responsibilities, and strengthen safety training for workers. In recent years, compensation disputes have occurred frequently due to employees suffering from online fraud while performing their duties, causing losses to employers. A staff member from an office of a dance company in Chongqing, at the request of the "boss", opened a QQ group without verification. The financial personnel who entered the group transferred 8.95 million yuan to a fraudulent account according to the instructions of the "leader". After reporting to the police, only 500000 yuan was recovered. This case was recently selected as one of the top ten typical cases of the Chongqing court in 2023. Coincidentally, Ms. Sheng, a financial staff member of a technology company in Danyang City, Jiangsu Province, was pulled into a WeChat group. The "enterprise manager" asked her to transfer 7 million yuan to a certain account and stated that she would "note the incoming and outgoing payments and make up for them after completing the procedures". Ms. Sheng suddenly remembered that in anti fraud propaganda, it is common for people to pretend to be leaders and demand payment, so she immediately suspended the transfer operation, saving the company 7 million yuan. If an employee is defrauded by telecommunications networks while performing their duties and causes significant losses to the company, should they be compensated? Where are the boundaries and limits of compensation? According to the instructions of the "leader", a transfer of 8.95 million yuan was defrauded. Recently, it was learned from the Chongqing High People's Court that Yao, Zhou, Chen, and Zheng are all employees of a dance company in Chongqing. In March 2021, office worker Yao received an email from the sender named "Li" (the name of the chairman of the company's group), stating that "in order to strengthen the unified work system arrangement of the prevention and control company, a new QQ office dedicated group has been established. Upon receiving the email notification, he immediately joined the work group". Yao then forwarded the email content to Zhou, who is also an office worker. After Zhou joined the group, he notified the financial personnel Chen and Zheng to join the group in response to the request to add the name "Liu" (the person in charge of the company) in the group. On that day, Zheng and Chen transferred a total of 8.95 million yuan to different outsiders through the dance company account according to the instructions of "Liu" in the group. Later, the dance company discovered that the executives of companies such as "Liu" in the chat group were all false identities, so they reported the case to the public security organs. After being investigated by the public security organs, the company has recovered a total of 500000 yuan from the defrauded funds, with more than 8.4 million yuan still to be recovered. The dance company subsequently initiated arbitration and filed a lawsuit, requesting compensation of over 8.4 million yuan from Yao, Zhou, Chen, and Zheng for the company's losses. After being tried by two levels of courts, four employees were ordered to compensate 10% of the total loss amount. In the above-mentioned case, the court found that Yao and Zhou, as office staff, forwarded false information to colleagues without verifying their identities and requested financial personnel to join non office QQ software group chats, failing to fulfill their reasonable and prudent obligations; Chen and Zheng, as financial personnel, violated the financial accounting system by transferring funds to the account provided by the imposter without verifying their identity and strictly following the financial approval process, resulting in significant economic losses for a dance company in Chongqing. The presiding judge stated that this case is a case where the employee caused damage to the employer due to gross negligence during the performance of their duties. For the losses suffered by a dance company in Chongqing in this fraud incident, reasonable allocation should be made based on whether there were any management omissions in the company, the size of the employee's fault, the ability to pay, and the nature of the parties' subject status. The actions of Yao, Zhou, Chen, and Zheng all constitute gross negligence, resulting in economic damage to the dance company, and they should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities in accordance with the law. Based on this, the first instance court ruled that Yao, Zhou, Chen, and Zheng are respectively liable for 15%, 25%, 35%, and 25% of the losses suffered by a dance company in Chongqing. After the verdict, Yao, Zhou, Chen, and Zheng from a dance company in Chongqing all appealed against the verdict. The Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the employer can claim compensation from the employee for the losses caused by telecommunications fraud during the performance of their duties, as well as the issue of compensation limits and boundaries. The Chongqing High Court believes that due to the disadvantaged position of workers compared to employers, the establishment of the principle of attribution should also focus on protecting workers. Employers should establish a sound and strict management system, and ensure that the system provisions are promptly and completely communicated to employees and can be effectively implemented. At the same time, they should fulfill their management responsibilities, strengthen safety training for employees, block possible financial risks and loopholes, and avoid unnecessary losses. This judgment not only safeguards the interests of employers, but also maximizes the protection of workers, effectively achieving a balance of interests between both parties and the principles of fairness and justice Professor Hu Dawu from Southwest University of Political Science and Law said. Hu Dawu stated that the employer is responsible for providing production materials and working conditions, and enjoys business benefits. If the employee causes damage to the employer during the performance of the labor contract, it belongs to the employer's business risk to a certain extent and scope. If the business risk caused by the imperfect company system and loose management is entirely borne by the employee, it is obviously unfair. At the same time, workers also have a duty of loyalty and diligence, and should avoid harming the interests of employers in the process of performing their duties. In a case in Shanghai, Ms. Qiu, who works as a financial cashier, also encountered scammers on WeChat regarding what kind of fault an employee should be compensated for. The other party forged a WeChat work group and impersonated the "general manager" to make her transfer money, resulting in a loss of 100000 yuan for the company. Due to Miss Qiu's failure to provide compensation afterwards, the company sued her to the Pudong New Area People's Court in Shanghai. The court found that according to the financial system, cashiers require the signature of the leader to transfer funds. Miss Qiu easily transferred large amounts of money with just one WeChat message, which was a gross negligence. However, previous company leaders informed payment through WeChat and signed off afterwards, proving that there were also loopholes in the company's financial system. After the judge held a court hearing to understand the situation, the two parties organized mediation and finally reached a voluntary agreement: Miss Qiu terminated her employment relationship with the company and compensated the company for a loss of 20000 yuan. The reporter learned that in over 100 publicly available cases of online fraud in recent years, more than 80% of the cases have ruled that the employees involved bear 10% of the losses, some have ruled that the employees bear 20% of the losses, and there are also individual cases where the employees are not held responsible. At present, the use of artificial intelligence technology to deeply synthesize new types of online fraud methods such as "face changing" and "voice changing" is more covert and deceptive, and also poses new challenges to traditional enterprise management models. If a deceived worker causes economic losses to the employer due to intentional or gross negligence during the performance of their duties, they shall be compensated. The extent to which the fault of the deceived worker during the performance of duties should be pursued for compensation responsibility needs to be strictly defined Lawyer Li Jian from Beijing Deheng Chongqing Law Firm said. Li Jian believes that "intention" is the subjective fault with the highest degree of fault, and the losses incurred by the employer due to the worker's knowing impossibility should clearly be compensated. But for workers who are deceived in the performance of their duties, if they are only liable for general or minor negligence, it is a form of harsh punishment. Considering the subordinate nature of labor relations and the general principle of labor laws favoring the protection of workers, the degree of fault that workers who are deceived in the performance of their duties should bear for compensation should be limited to intentional or gross negligence. (New Society)