The White Helmets Unit offers research, authority, professionalism, timeliness and comprehensiveness on the subject of potential development by the Kimberly Analyst!

How much is it cost to dig a financial brick? In recent days, a judgement disclosed by the network of adjudicative instruments revealed the tip of the iceberg in recent years.

The relevant decision-making instruments show that, in 2020, a courier was brought before a court by a hunter company because of its arrears in the “head charge”. It was known that hunter companies had recommended a high-end man to the vouchers and had mentioned in the interview records of consultants that 10 teams could join, but that only one person eventually took up his or her post and left for only nine months.

After several reminders of service charges were made to the vouchers, the hunter company brought the tickets before the court for a service fee of R$ 216,000. Ultimately, the Court ordered the ticket dealer to pay 162,000 yuan renminbi for services and related overdue interest losses to the hunter company based on 20 per cent of the nine-month income of the recommended employee.

Recommend high-end talent and agree on a 23 per cent share of the cost of hunting services

The relevant decision-making instruments indicate that, on 17 April 2020, a securities worker approached the HMS Human Resources Management Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “point manpower”) in connection with the recommendation of the bond team.

On 20 April 2020, a securities worker sent a sample of the Reference Services Agreement to a certain manpower employee, who agreed to recommend qualified candidates for a post designated for a given securities, and to assist in the completion of the related interviewing, verification, etc. of a candidate for a candidate in a securities; if a person recommended for a man was recruited, a service fee was paid for at a rate of 23 per cent of the total pre-tax year’s income for each post, for a period of three months.

In May 2020, a bond team candidate was recommended by mail for some of the emerging securities, and the consultant interview records provided indicated that “the candidate may now join with some 10 teams”.

Eventually, some Ma’a has successfully entered the corresponding position of a floating securities, with a monthly income of 90,000 yuan, and a registration date of 8 February 2021, based on a search of the basic information system for Chinese Securities Association practitioners. However, a man was separated only for more than nine months and the date of separation was 16 November 2021.

Vendors: a good team?

The recommended talent has become active and the cost of “hunting” services has been delayed.

The decision indicates that, on 7 August 2021, some manpower staff contacted a securities worker who had been identified with a leader, “the money he could pay is due to the problem of the rate being accommodated. I have also communicated with my leadership that 20 per cent of the problem is one of ensuring prompt access … What is the greeting of this paragraph, I would like to respond to the time frame.” A securities worker responded that “conservatively, can be put in place by the end of the month”.

On 7 August 2021, the plaintiff’s staff contacted the defendant’s staff to know that I had confirmed with the grandson, and that the payment of a cheon could be made because of the rate of the settlement. I have also communicated with my leadership that 20 per cent of the problem is one of ensuring prompt access … What is the greeting of this paragraph, I would like to respond to the time limit, and the respondent staff responded that “conservatively, can be put in place by the end of this month”.

On 24 August, a securities worker responded to a 20 per cent bar for a certain number of staff. Subsequently, some securities were not paid.

On 15 February 2022, the plaintiff sent a letter of counsel to the defendant in respect of certain elements of manpower, requesting a securities to pay a fee of $2.76 million for the services of a candidate for a certain royalty. Payments have not been made since the receipt of some securities.

In response, a respondent’s securities defended that the plaintiff was a representative of the defendant and recommended that certain persons be admitted to the post of man, but that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to recommend the bond team and that one of them had agreed to take a team of 10 persons and eventually only one of them.

In addition, some securities indicated that the parties did not enter into a written contract and that the 20 per cent charge rate was too high and that the parties did not finalize it.

Court tickets paid 1.62 million service fees and interest losses

The relevant court held that the plaintiff had a contractual relationship of service between the manpower and the defendant’s securities, that the plaintiff had recommended to the defendant that the candidate beat some throw, that certain throw had been successful in entering the office of the defendant, and that the defendant should pay the corresponding fees for service in a timely manner. It is overdue and is liable for default accordingly.

The Court also noted that, in the absence of a written contract between the parties, the amount of the service fee and the time of payment were not expressly agreed upon, a comprehensive consideration was given to the agreement on the rates of service in the sample of contracts provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, the negotiation of the rates of the parties in the chat records, and the defendant’s request to the defendant to recommend the bond team, the fact that only one candidate was assigned to a post and served only for approximately nine months in the defendant’s unit, i.e. 162,000 yen (90000/month x 20 per cent).

In the case of loss of interest due to late payment, the Court, as appropriate, received from the defendant the next day of the Letter of Counsel, i.e., from 16 February 2022, at the rate of one year’s loan market quotation issued by the Interbanking Centre.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that an accused’s securities paid the plaintiff’s contribution of $1.62 million for certain manpower services and that the plaintiff was compensated for the loss of late payment interest, calculated at the rate of quotation from the national inter-bank lending market for the same year, published by the National Centre for Interbanking and Borrowing from 16 February to the date of actual performance, within 10 days of the date of the entry into force of the judgement.

Prepared by: Franciscans

School-to-school: Suwash

Family benefits, 60 days of experience with services, a one-to-one service!

Electricity information, precision reading, new waves

The White Helmets Unit offers research, authority, professionalism, timeliness and comprehensiveness on the subject of potential development by the Kimberly Analyst!

How much is it cost to dig a financial brick? In recent days, a judgement disclosed by the network of adjudicative instruments revealed the tip of the iceberg in recent years.

The relevant decision-making instruments show that, in 2020, a courier was brought before a court by a hunter company because of its arrears in the “head charge”. It was known that hunter companies had recommended a high-end man to the vouchers and had mentioned in the interview records of consultants that 10 teams could join, but that only one person eventually took up his or her post and left for only nine months.

After several reminders of service charges were made to the vouchers, the hunter company brought the tickets before the court for a service fee of R$ 216,000. Ultimately, the Court ordered the ticket dealer to pay 162,000 yuan renminbi for services and related overdue interest losses to the hunter company based on 20 per cent of the nine-month income of the recommended employee.

Recommend high-end talent and agree on a 23 per cent share of the cost of hunting services

The relevant decision-making instruments indicate that, on 17 April 2020, a securities worker approached the HMS Human Resources Management Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “point manpower”) in connection with the recommendation of the bond team.

On 20 April 2020, a securities worker sent a sample of the Reference Services Agreement to a certain manpower employee, who agreed to recommend qualified candidates for a post designated for a given securities, and to assist in the completion of the related interviewing, verification, etc. of a candidate for a candidate in a securities; if a person recommended for a man was recruited, a service fee was paid for at a rate of 23 per cent of the total pre-tax year’s income for each post, for a period of three months.

In May 2020, a bond team candidate was recommended by mail for some of the emerging securities, and the consultant interview records provided indicated that “the candidate may now join with some 10 teams”.

Eventually, some Ma’a has successfully entered the corresponding position of a floating securities, with a monthly income of 90,000 yuan, and a registration date of 8 February 2021, based on a search of the basic information system for Chinese Securities Association practitioners. However, a man was separated only for more than nine months and the date of separation was 16 November 2021.

Vendors: a good team?

The recommended talent has become active and the cost of “hunting” services has been delayed.

The decision indicates that, on 7 August 2021, some manpower staff contacted a securities worker who had been identified with a leader, “the money he could pay is due to the problem of the rate being accommodated. I have also communicated with my leadership that 20 per cent of the problem is one of ensuring prompt access … What is the greeting of this paragraph, I would like to respond to the time frame.” A securities worker responded that “conservatively, can be put in place by the end of the month”.

On 7 August 2021, the plaintiff’s staff contacted the defendant’s staff to know that I had confirmed with the grandson, and that the payment of a cheon could be made because of the rate of the settlement. I have also communicated with my leadership that 20 per cent of the problem is one of ensuring prompt access … What is the greeting of this paragraph, I would like to respond to the time limit, and the respondent staff responded that “conservatively, can be put in place by the end of this month”.

On 24 August, a securities worker responded to a 20 per cent bar for a certain number of staff. Subsequently, some securities were not paid.

On 15 February 2022, the plaintiff sent a letter of counsel to the defendant in respect of certain elements of manpower, requesting a securities to pay a fee of $2.76 million for the services of a candidate for a certain royalty. Payments have not been made since the receipt of some securities.

In response, a respondent’s securities defended that the plaintiff was a representative of the defendant and recommended that certain persons be admitted to the post of man, but that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to recommend the bond team and that one of them had agreed to take a team of 10 persons and eventually only one of them.

In addition, some securities indicated that the parties did not enter into a written contract and that the 20 per cent charge rate was too high and that the parties did not finalize it.

Court tickets paid 1.62 million service fees and interest losses

The relevant court held that the plaintiff had a contractual relationship of service between the manpower and the defendant’s securities, that the plaintiff had recommended to the defendant that the candidate beat some throw, that certain throw had been successful in entering the office of the defendant, and that the defendant should pay the corresponding fees for service in a timely manner. It is overdue and is liable for default accordingly.

The Court also noted that, in the absence of a written contract between the parties, the amount of the service fee and the time of payment were not expressly agreed upon, a comprehensive consideration was given to the agreement on the rates of service in the sample of contracts provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, the negotiation of the rates of the parties in the chat records, and the defendant’s request to the defendant to recommend the bond team, the fact that only one candidate was assigned to a post and served only for approximately nine months in the defendant’s unit, i.e. 162,000 yen (90000/month x 20 per cent).

In the case of loss of interest due to late payment, the Court, as appropriate, received from the defendant the next day of the Letter of Counsel, i.e., from 16 February 2022, at the rate of one year’s loan market quotation issued by the Interbanking Centre.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that an accused’s securities paid the plaintiff’s contribution of $1.62 million for certain manpower services and that the plaintiff was compensated for the loss of late payment interest, calculated at the rate of quotation from the national inter-bank lending market for the same year, published by the National Centre for Interbanking and Borrowing from 16 February to the date of actual performance, within 10 days of the date of the entry into force of the judgement.

Prepared by: Franciscans

School-to-school: Suwash

Family benefits, 60 days of experience with services, a one-to-one service!

Electricity information, precision reading, new waves