Criminal Liability For Domestic Servitude And Exploitation Of Foreign Domestic Workers In China
Legal Framework
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 244 (Human Trafficking): Criminalizes trafficking of women, children, and foreigners for forced labor, sexual exploitation, or servitude.
Article 247 (Illegal Confinement and Forced Labor): Criminalizes unlawful detention or coercion to work against one’s will.
Article 250 (Fraud and Abuse for Labor): Covers recruitment under false pretenses and exploitative practices.
Labor Law and Employment Regulations
Foreign domestic workers often enter via legal contracts; violations (withholding passports, excessive work hours, non-payment) may constitute criminal liability if coercion or abuse is present.
Chinese law distinguishes between civil labor disputes and criminal exploitation; the latter requires evidence of coercion, confinement, or human trafficking.
Case 1: Beijing Household Servitude Case (2013)
Facts:
A Beijing family employed a foreign domestic worker from the Philippines. The worker’s passport was confiscated, and she was forced to work 18 hours a day without rest or pay.
Legal Issues:
Whether withholding passports and coercing labor constitutes criminal exploitation.
Distinguishing civil employment disputes from criminal abuse.
Analysis:
Court relied on Article 247 (illegal confinement and forced labor).
Confiscation of travel documents and excessive working hours indicated deprivation of freedom.
Outcome:
The employers were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Case highlighted that criminal liability applies even when the worker is legally employed but subjected to coercion.
Case 2: Guangzhou Human Trafficking for Domestic Labor (2015)
Facts:
A criminal syndicate recruited women from Indonesia under false contracts, promising legitimate domestic work. Upon arrival, they were forced to work long hours, with wages withheld, and their movement restricted.
Legal Issues:
Determining whether the syndicate’s actions constituted human trafficking under Article 244.
Assessment of “forced labor” versus voluntary employment.
Analysis:
Courts emphasized recruitment fraud, confinement, and coercion.
Syndicate members were distinct from individual employers; criminal intent was clear.
Outcome:
Syndicate leaders received 6–10 years imprisonment.
Victims were repatriated, and restitution ordered.
Established precedent for prosecuting organized domestic labor trafficking.
Case 3: Shanghai Employer Exploitation Case (2016)
Facts:
A foreign domestic worker from Nepal was overworked, threatened with deportation, and unpaid for several months. She reported the employer to authorities.
Legal Issues:
Whether threats of deportation constitute coercion for forced labor.
Establishing employer liability under Article 247.
Analysis:
Threats restricting mobility and withholding wages were sufficient to demonstrate coercion.
The court distinguished between unpaid wages (civil issue) and coercive abuse (criminal issue).
Outcome:
Employer sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
Court reinforced that abuse of legal immigration status to coerce labor is criminal.
Case 4: Shenzhen Domestic Worker Passport Confiscation (2017)
Facts:
An employer confiscated a Filipino domestic worker’s passport and confined her in the apartment for months, forcing her to perform household work continuously.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Article 247 for illegal confinement.
Assessment of whether coercion meets the threshold for criminal liability.
Analysis:
Evidence included testimony, passport records, and witness statements.
Court held that restricting freedom of movement constitutes illegal confinement and forced labor.
Outcome:
Employer sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Reaffirmed courts’ focus on freedom deprivation rather than purely wage disputes.
Case 5: Hangzhou Recruitment Fraud and Domestic Servitude (2018)
Facts:
A recruitment agency recruited Indonesian women under false contracts, bringing them to China to work as domestic workers. They were forced to work 16–18 hours a day with no pay.
Legal Issues:
Whether recruitment agencies facilitating servitude are criminally liable.
Proving human trafficking under Article 244.
Analysis:
Court emphasized the recruitment process: deception, coercion, and exploitation.
The agency’s intent to profit from forced labor established criminal liability.
Outcome:
Agency owners received 7 years imprisonment.
Victims were provided compensation and repatriation.
Important for holding intermediaries criminally responsible.
Case 6: Tianjin Foreign Worker Coercion Case (2019)
Facts:
A family employed a domestic worker from Sri Lanka, refused to pay wages, threatened deportation, and isolated her from the outside world.
Legal Issues:
Determining if repeated threats and non-payment rise to criminal abuse.
Assessing severity for sentencing.
Analysis:
Court highlighted patterns of coercion: confinement, wage withholding, and threats.
Criminal law applied due to the cumulative effect of abuse on freedom and autonomy.
Outcome:
Employer sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined.
Worker received compensation.
Reinforced protection for foreign domestic workers under criminal law.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Criminal vs Civil Liability:
Non-payment of wages alone is civil.
Coercion, confinement, threats, or withholding travel documents trigger criminal liability.
Legal Articles Frequently Applied:
Article 244: Human trafficking (organized recruitment).
Article 247: Illegal confinement and forced labor.
Role of Recruitment Agencies:
Agencies can be held criminally liable if they facilitate coercion or fraud.
Sentencing Factors:
Severity, duration, number of victims, confinement degree, and deception influence punishment.
Victim Protections:
Courts often order restitution, compensation, and repatriation.
Community organizations and embassies often assist victims in reporting abuse.
RELATED Blog
comments