Is It Right to Reward Finders of Lost Property?

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 issues in this draft surrounds the question of whether a reward should be paid for recovered property. The draft clearly stipulates that the lost property should be returned to its owner; the people who find the lost property should inform the owner or the person who lost it, or hand it in to the relevant authorities, within 20 days of the property being found; the owner of the property should pay the storage fee when they collect their lost pro-perty; people who offer a reward for returned property should pay the reward as agreed; if the finder has used the property, they have no right to claim storage fees and reward; and the lost property will revert to the state if nobody claims it.

After the draft law was made public, it raised much debate. Some say this clause encouraging payment of reward for recovered property must be changed, as it betrays the traditional Chinese virtue of “returning the money found without payment.” The law should encourage these sound values and virtues and call on society to carry on this tradition, say many.

However, others argue that the terms of this draft do not contradict the traditional virtues of the Chinese nation. Judged from foreign legislation, the trend appears to be if the lost property is of little value and is not state-owned, people can keep what they find. China’s legislation should be brought more in line with international practice. They assert it is unnecessary to return things of little value, say below 10 yuan ($1.21), as the trouble it might take to find the owner may make it unviable. As a result, they feel it is within their rights to keep property of little value. Meanwhile, for more valuable property, they have the right to claim a certain amount of storage fee and accept a reward.

Encouraging the Return of Lost Property

Zhao Chenguang (official with Wenfeng District People’s Procuratorate in Anyang City, Henan Province): People are educated about returning money found from a very young age, however does the new trend make this traditional virtue seem old-fashioned?

Here is what happened in my city a year ago. A young security guard from the countryside, who earned only 300 yuan ($36.23) a month, found a wallet containing 80,000 yuan ($9,661) cash and other valuables whilst on duty and took the trouble to return the wallet to its owner. The young man refused to take the 5,000-yuan ($603.86) 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 people were inspired by the actions of the young security guard, while others expressed their pity for him. The focus was whether or not the young man should accept the money offered by the owner, who tried persistently to persuade him to take. One point of view was that he should not accept it, otherwise his image as a hero and a righteous person might be destroyed. Tradition has, after all, taught us to return things found unconditionally. On the contrary, another opinion contended that the young guard should not only have accepted the money with a clear conscience, as it was proper, reasonable and lawful.

I am with the latter group. First of all, it was proper for the young guard to keep the reward. He should be rewarded not only for his behavior of returning the money found, but also for his honesty and integrity. It was our hope that the young man can avoid poverty and that he may live a sound life in the future. Secondly, I believe it is reasonable to keep the money. Apart from other valuables inside the wallet, there was 80,000 yuan cash in it. 80,000:5,000 equals 16:1. It is a much more favorable trade for the person who lost the wallet. By saying that I mean, if the young man had pocketed the money, how could the owner receive such a pleasant surprise after so much worry? Let’s say it is also lawful. Nowadays, China is entering a new era of the rule of law and people are becoming more sensitive about law. According to the General Principles of the Civil Law of China (the General Principles), people should be compensated for their voluntary service. It is therefore lawful and convincing for the young guard to accept the 5,000-yuan cash reward for his behavior.

So now that it is proper, reasonable and lawful, why did the young man refuse to accept the money? I think he is confined to some traditional senses. The individual behavior of the young man reflects his choice, giving up his right to accept a reward. However, looking at it from good will, encouraging people to do good or from rational judgment, I suggest the young man accept the reward.

This story reminds me of a story told by economist Li Yining in a speech delivered in Peking University. He told the audience that in ancient times, a student of Confucius had once jumped into the river and saved a person’s life. To express their gratitude, the relatives of the person sent the student a cow as a gratuity. Some people complained that the student was so greedy that he dared to accept such a costly gift. Under pressure, the student turned to Confucius for advice. To his surprise and great relief, Confucius not only praised him for his behavior, but also pointed out that it would encourage more people to save others’ life. Professor Li intended to tell the story to let people know that they should not be shy and feel shameful to accept the remuneration of labor. But in the same way, why shouldn’t we be kind to people who do righteous things and who are ready to help others for a just cause and reward them both mentally and materially?

In other words, if integrity creates embarrassment, does it mean the evaluation criteria of this social virtue is out-dated and old-fashioned? Should traditional virtues advance with the times?

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

Voluntary service is a legal concept prescribed in the General Principles, Article 93. If a person acts as manager or provides services in order to protect another person’s interests when he is not legally or contractually obligated to do so, he shall be entitled to claim from the beneficiary the expenses necessary for such assistance. The stipulation is for the purpose of encouraging people to help others for a just cause and creating a fine social atmosphere from a legal perspective. It can also be viewed as an encouragement for returning the money found. But if the people have incurred a loss in the process of managing other’s affairs or paid necessary storage and management fees, a debtor-creditor relationship will be formed between the two persons. That is called a debt for voluntary service, which should be repaid by the owner. This system is recognized in the majority of the countries in the world.

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 the money found is aimed at boosting morality. In other words, it calls for people doing good things without counting gains or losses, which is totally different from the debt created by voluntary service.

Currently, in a market economy society, if the law does not protect the rights and interests of a voluntary service provider, apart from the morally superior, who will be willing to sacrifice his/her time, energy and money to care for or return lost property for free? Is this the last resort--I will not pick up things you lose? If this idea dominates society, the owner of the lost property will have to incur great loss, and it is not conducive to promote morality.

As a result, I believe the stipulation in the draft law is reasonable and rational.

Does Protecting Morals by Law Destroy Morality?

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

The core of property rights is the ownership. The lost property, in effect, means loss of control by its owner, while other rights like ownership are not lost at the same time. When someone finds a lost item of property that has nothing to do with him or her or the public interest, does he or she have the right to exercise any power over that property--like taking custody of it? From the perspective of property rights law, the rightful behavior of a citizen should be “leaving the thing where it is.”

Our Constitution has already confirmed the protection of private property and I believe it is inviolable. In addition, if someone disposes the lost property of others, he or she must do it with good will and should not claim any reward. On the contrary, the keeper may have to pay for any damage the property has suffered, if there is any. As for the owners, it is up to them to show their gratitude either materially or non-materially to the person who finds their property. If giving reward is forcibly stipulated in the law, then it may cause the owner’s discontent and violate the spirit of law. As for the lost property keepers, if the law says it is lawful for them to claim a reward, things might turn sour. For example, on June 30, a graduate from Yangtze University lost his diploma and the degree certificate in a taxi. After bargaining back and forth, he finally got his certificates back for 400 yuan ($48.31).

We should not encourage good deeds by way of offering legal rewards. We may find that when we want to preserve our morality by law, we are actually destroying that very morality by law.