Giving rewards for returning lost property?
China Daily  Updated: 2005-08-12 06:01

In the middle of July, the Standing Committee of the 10th National People's Congress (NPC) released the Property Rights Law, seeking feedback from the general public.

One of the most contentious matters in the draft is whether a reward should be paid for recovered property. The draft clearly stipulates lost property should be returned to its rightful owner.

Those that find misplaced articles should inform the owner or the person who lost them, or hand them in to relevant authorities, within 20 days of the property being found.

The owner of the lost property should cover any storage fee incurred when they collect their belongings. If the finder has used the item in some way they have no right to claim either a storage fee or a reward.

Those who offer a reward for returned property should pay up as agreed. Lost property reverts to the State if nobody claims it.

After the draft law was made public, it sparked extensive debate. Some say the clause encouraging the payment of rewards must be changed, as it goes against the traditional Chinese virtue of "returning the money found without payment." The law should encourage these sound values and call on society to carry on this tradition, many think.

But others argue the terms of the draft do not contradict traditional virtues. Judging from foreign legislation, the attitude appears to be that if lost property is of little value and is not State-owned, finders can be keepers.

China's legislation should be brought in line with international practice. It is unnecessary to return items worth perhaps less than 10 yuan (US$1.23), as the trouble it might take to track down the owner would make it impractical.

As a result, finders feel it is within their rights to keep property of little value. For more valuable property they have the right to claim a certain amount as a handling fee, and would expect to receive a reward.

Zhao Chenguang, an official from the Wenfeng District People's Procuratorate in Anyang, Henan Province, said: "From a very young age, people are educated about returning money found. However, does the new trend make this traditional virtue seem old-fashioned?"

A young security guard from the countryside, who earned only 300 yuan (US$37) a month, found a wallet containing 80,000 yuan (US$9,870) in cash and other valuables whilst on duty, and took the trouble to return the wallet to its owner in Anyang. The young man refused to accept the 5,000-yuan (US$616) reward offered by the owner.

The media praised the young man for his righteous act, especially in light of the fact that his father is a poor farmer and his mother has been ill in bed for a long time. The reward money would have been a huge help for him and his family.

Many were inspired by the unselfish security guard's actions. But others took pity on him.

Some say the man was right not to take the reward, as he became a righteous hero. On the other hand, some believe he could have accepted the money with a clear conscience as it would have been proper, reasonable and lawful to do so.

Indeed it would have been right for the young guard to take the money. He should be rewarded not only for returning the lost wallet, but also for his honesty and integrity. China is entering a new era of the rule of law and people are becoming more sensitive to the principles of right and wrong. According to the General Principles of the Civil Law of China (the General Principles), people should be compensated for voluntary service. It is therefore lawful to accept cash rewards.

So why did the young man refuse to accept the money? He was obviously influenced by traditional values, and of course his action was his personal choice. But in terms of encouraging people to act morally and rationally, the young man should have accepted the reward.

If integrity creates embarrassment, does it mean the evaluation criterion of this social virtue is out-dated? Should virtues advance with the times?

Xia Qingwen, a freelance writer, said: "I think people confuse the two concepts of debt and remuneration. Their differences lie first in voluntary service."

Volunteering is a legal concept prescribed in the General Principles, Article 93. If a person provides services in order to protect another person's interests when he or she is not legally or contractually obligated to do so, he or she is entitled to claim from the beneficiary the expenses necessary for such assistance.

The stipulation is intended to encourage people to help others in a just cause to create a harmonious social atmosphere from a legal perspective. It can also be viewed as an incentive to return lost property.

But if someone incurs a loss in the process of managing another's affairs or pays necessary storage and management fees, a debtor-creditor relationship will be formed. That is called a debt for voluntary service, which should be repaid by the owner. This system is recognized in the majority of countries.

Remuneration is money claimed by one person, apart from necessary expenses, for helping another, the purpose of which is to gain additional profit. The traditional Chinese virtue advocating returning misplaced articles aims to promote morality. In other words, it calls for people doing good turns without counting gains or losses, which is totally different from the debt created by voluntary service.

In a society with a market economy, if the law does not protect the rights and interests of a voluntary service provider, rewarded only by moral superiority, who will be willing to sacrifice his or her time, energy and money to care for or return lost property for free? If this idea becomes dominant, lost property will go unreturned and morality will not be promoted.

Therefore the stipulation in the draft law is reasonable and rational.

He Xiangdong, a columnist at People's Daily, said: "Returning found money belongs to the category of moral behaviour. The legislation deals with property rights, so the emphasis of the law should be requiring citizens to leave lost property where it is, without being virtuous in the name of the law. Meanwhile, it is irrational to encourage people to return money found by way of rewarding them."

When someone finds lost property that has nothing to do with him or her or the wider public interest, does he or she have the right to exercise any power over those items? From the perspective of the property rights law, the proper thing to do should be "leaving the thing where it is."

Our Constitution has already confirmed the protection of private property, which is inviolable. In addition, if someone returns lost property, he or she must do so in the spirit of good will, and should not claim a reward.

As for owners, it is up to them to show their gratitude whether materially or not. If the giving of rewards is forcibly stipulated by law, owners may be upset and violate it. As for lost property keepers, if the law says it is accceptable for them to claim a reward, things may turn sour.

We should not encourage good deeds by way of offering legal rewards. We may try to preserve morality by law but will actually destroy it in doing so.

(China Daily 08/12/2005 page4)

Close