澳洲签证行业是一个水很深的地方，有很多骗局。包括假结婚，假雇主担保，假配偶的副申请人，假商业投资，假雅思代考，假工作经验。各种造假，花里胡哨，云山雾罩。
如果你不幸卷入了这些骗局里面，可能会导致人财两空的局面，签证没有拿到，一大笔钱也没有了。我们处理了很多这样骗局的受害者的签证。有的我们成功的帮客户通过正规途径拿到了签证，有的帮客户追回了部分损失。由于这个骗局的主导往往消失跑路了，所以就算法律上可以给受害人提供救济。能拿到对受害者有利的法院判决，最后的结果也取决于能不能找到犯罪嫌疑人的资产予以执行。如果犯罪嫌疑人是澳洲公民，那么比较容易查询到他的资产，做扣押和拍卖。
衡平法和合同法和ACL 是解决这类问题的利器。
衡平法核心诉因版图
│
┌───────────────────┬───────────────┴───────────────┬───────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
一、信义与信任关系 二、违背良知与禁反言 三、合同与文书衡平救济 四、机密与无形财产
├─ 违反信托 ├─ 衡平法禁反言 (Estoppel) ├─ 契约矫正 (Rectification)├─ 违反保密义务
├─ 违反信义义务 ├─ 显失公平交易 (Unconscionable)├─ 衡平撤销 (Rescission) │ (Breach of Confidence)
└─ 第三人衡平责任 ├─ 不当影响 (Undue Influence) ├─ 强制履行 (Specific Perf.)└─ 衡平法让与/优先权纠纷
(*Barnes v Addy*)└─ 精神胁迫 (Duress in Equity) └─ 衡平法禁令 (Injunction)违反信托的案子比如 Larkspur Tribeca Ltd 法院判定信托契约中的“信托资产”涵盖业绩股权利；受托人拒不转让的行为性质；算定衡平补偿金的股票单价。受托人未按期履约交付资产，不能导致信托消灭；在受托人履行义务前，其必须继续为受益人持有信托资产。受托人拒不履行转让义务，构成严重违反信托。但是第三人责任（Barnes v Addy）的问题上 被告胜诉
知情接收失败原因：原告未能进行资产追踪（Tracing）。股票是在公开市场上混同的可替代池，原告无法证明转让给 Select 的 2.23 亿股股票中具体哪一部分属于原告的信托财产。
知情协助失败原因：知情协助要求受托人具有“欺诈与不诚信图谋”。虽然受托人法律理解错误导致违约，但其主观上是基于对契约条款的法律误解，不构成超越普通违约的道德恶劣性或不诚信图谋。衡平法补偿金估值 —— 关键计算评估节点：按判决之日（Date of Judgment）评估。
违反良知的案子比如 Ji 本案是处理“第三方担保人（且为弱势群体）抗辩抵押权执行”的教科书式案例。它完整展示了如何同时运用四个维度的法律理论（不当影响、不公正合同、显失公平、误导性行为）来推翻一份看似合规（甚至有律师见证）的贷款及抵押协议。
对受害人的法律救济的依据
Zheng v Sui [2010] NSWSC 687 在这个案件里，郑先生被他的移民代理随先生忽悠投资了一个加油站。郑先生成功在澳洲法院胜诉，拿回了他的投资款。
Li v Liu [2022] NSWCA 67 这个案件里，Ms Li 被她的移民代理Liu女士忽悠去投资他的公司换取雇主担保。
repudiation 撤回合同 (合同法）
原告没有主张被告repudiation 撤回合同，被告反诉原告撤回合同。法官 Rein J 认为 para 47: ” I do not think that a party in breach of contract, at least where the breach relates to a significant matter, can treat the other side’s response to that breach as itself a repudiation capable of being act on. ”
2 S7 of Contracts review Act : contract of a provision of a contract is unjust (合同或者合同中的条款unjust)
restitution 物归原主 衡平法原则在移民欺诈案中的地位
在 Li v Liu [2022] NSWCA 67 这个案件中 Ms Li 可以从 T&S 拿回投资款，就是使用的restitutionary 的basis
在这个案件中， 由于Ms Li 已经超过了23岁，不能作为家庭成员一起和父母办理商业移民，Mr Wang 和他的前妻 Ms Liu 有一家公司 T&S 公司，他们协议投资$50万澳元换取全家的签证，包括188签证和已经成年的子女Ms Li 的雇主担保签证。 但是 Ms Li 没有拿到雇主担保签证，要求 Mr wang 返还这$50万澳元的投资款。尽管初审法院知道他们的这种协议是违反澳洲移民法的，但是法院还是判决 T&S 公司返还Ms Li 女士的投资款。
这个判决好像Ms Li 获胜了，但是由于这个判决只是判决 T&S 公司返还投资款，可能T&S 公司都已经资不抵债了，Ms Li 很难真正拿到属于她的$50万。
As per para 28 Ms Li 的律师运用了一个常见的法律策略，cascade clause, ” if the Visa Representations involved an illegal agreement”,then it was denied that the investment Deed was an illegal agreement. 就是说如果法院认为双方的通过这种安排取得签证的手段是非法的，那么投资协议本身并不违法。也就是说协议有效，这样Ms Li 没有取得签证，那么T&S 就是合同违约。”if the investment Deed [was] illegal agreement, and its performance is prohibited， then the investment deed is void and Ms Liu and or T&S were unjustly enriched. 如果说合同由于约定违法无效，那么T&S公司和Ms Liu 就是不当得利（unjustly enriched) 应当返还。as per Para 74 Ms Liu 和 Mr Wang 已经离婚，估计财产全部转移到了Ms Liu名下。 公司是空壳，直接的操盘手Mr Wang 估计又是转移资产到老婆Ms Liu 的名下，所以Mr Li的律师必须上诉把Ms Liu 要卷入这个案件
在这个判决中，Ms Li 很想把Ms Liu 卷入这个案件但是估计是缺乏证据，无法证明 Ms Liu 知道她参与了这个不合法的交易。 比如para 74 试图从资金来源上卷入Ms Liu. 可是 as per para 81, Her Honour did not find that Ms Liu was aware that any aspect of the arrangement was illegal or even that she had reason to believe that arrangements were illegel. Ms Liu 成功的和这个不法行为做了切割。 尽管Ms. Liu 是公司董事并且持有 99% 的 T&S的公司股份。但是并没有直接证据表明她对这个交易的细节知情， 并且 移民法在2015年12月才对这个买卖雇主的行为做了禁止，在那之前不是违法行为。
as per para 82 Ms Li 和她的律师进一步尝试 ” Ms Liu could not resist the claim to restitution because she “knowingly contribute to the restitution claim and equated with a wrongdoer and cannot take advantage of a change of position defence. 但是无法证明Ms Liu 参与和Ms Liu 给T&S 转钱的行为违法。Ms Liu 成功的运用了change of position defence, 或者具体来说change of position 中的agent defence来和不法行为做了切割。 其坚决否认她知道这个公司其实不应该收这笔钱。 根据agent defence 的法律原则 (as per para 94 Only has knowledge of the facts that give rise to the illegality and nothing more, then that will defeat a claim of payment over)，不该受到牵连。As per para 92 In Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v Hills Industries Ltd & Ors (2014) 253 CLR 560 at [171] Gageler J referred to the defendant acting in “good faith on the assumption that the defendant was entitled to deal with the payment which the defendant received.” Translated to the present context this would involve the agent or intermediary not having notice that their principal was not entitled to the payment that the agent has received on their behalf.
在Ms Li 和Ms Liu 的纠纷中明显Ms Liu 的律师表现的更专业。Ms Li的律师没有在plead 的阶段的statement of claim中提出这个unjust enrichment based on illegality的casue of action, 导致失去了向Ms Liu 追讨资金的机会。
并且as per para 56, the Appellants’ case of a breach of s 18 of the ACL cannot be recast on appeal by formulating a materially different representation as that would necessitate a different inquiry as to whether it was false or misleading and causative of damage to that which occurred at first instance (Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 at 7; [1986] HCA 33).Ms Li的律师也没有正确的在初审中提出Mr Wang 涉嫌欺诈的ACL S18 问题，导致在上诉中上诉庭不接受这个S18的cause of action. 正确的提出ACL cause of action 的姿势在para 65 法官也给出了指导意见可以作为今后类似案件的参考。（representation should not have been made therefore the investment would not have occurred.）
Lack of clean hands， Sham , Ilegality 在移民欺诈案中的地位
As per para 51 of Zheng v Sui [2010] NSWSC 687
sham, illegality and lack of clean hands are three distinct concepts, a party which seeks to contend that an agreement entered into by it is a sham must plead such a case. the Court may come to such view itself but it is not open to a party to make such a case without it being pleaded. 在这个案件中，股份转让协议是为了欺骗移民局才起草的，但是这并不是一个sham transaction, 因为规定很具体明确: The share agreement explicitly outlines the terms, stating that the shares would be repurchased once the 892 visa was obtained and that Mr. Zheng would have no control over the company.法官也并不认为郑先生有过失。 法官认为 Mr Sui encouraged Mr Zheng to believe that agreement would enable him to obtain an 892 visa and did not tell him that there was anything illegal or improper about it. 很多商业移民或者雇主担保骗局的受害人，一般都是受到中介的欺骗，自己作为受害人，并没有不当的地方。
Australian consumer Law （ACL） 在移民欺诈案中的地位
As per para 45 in Li v Liu [2022] NSWCA 67, Primary Judge held that illegality in the object of the main contract and public policy precluded any representations as having been made in trade or commerce and recovery generally. 初审法官认为由于合同的目的是不合法的（通过$100万投资换签证）那么不可以通过ACL寻求法律救济。
但是上诉庭法官在para 61 依据法律和谐原则 （coherence of law) 对于合同是不法领域（area）和合同的目的（Objective)是不合法的两种情况做了区分。”It has been held that some types of dealings, such as buying and selling stolen goods or sale of counterfeit currency are ex commercium, such that they stand outside the concept of trade and commerce in Consititution. 买卖被盗物品，制造销售假币，进口毒品都属于合同的area是不合法，不是正常的商业行为，不受ACL保护。
但是如果合同是在合法领域（area)但是合同的目的（objective) 是不合法的,比如租用卡车在不合法的时间或者不合法的地方开工，ACL并没有完全失去作用，但是一方违约导致为了另一方不合法目的的约定目的的损失是不能要求赔偿的。 e.g. As per Yango pastoral, Lost earnings for being unable to operate the truck unlawfully were not recoverable.
在移民欺诈案中，the making of representations is not illegal, the making of investments and obtaining of employment for the purpose of obtaining visas is not rendered illegal. 也就是说双方约定投资换签证这个行为本身没有违法，做投资换签证这个事情也不违法，但是这个事情安排的方式是不合法的。（the medtod by which those things were sought to be done was illegal by ss 245AS and ss 245 AR） 但是投资换签证这个事情仍然是正常的商业活动，属于合同目的不合法的这一类范畴，ACL还是可以适用的 as per para 64。
在移民欺诈案中的资金不是非法所得的资金，支持受害者拿回的资金也不是移民欺诈的受益或者雇主担保的受益，ACL可以支持受害者拿回投资的cause of Action 可以是 representation should not have been made therefore the investment would not have occurred.
As per para 49, 上诉法庭支持 contractual promise or warranty is also capable of constituting misleading or deceptive conduct of r the purpose of ACL. 就是说承诺和担保只要有欺诈或者误导成分ACL也是适用的。 至于是不是误导了要综合全部的沟通内容来看 （Whether a particular representation was made should be considered in the context of the entirety of communications)
在本案中，双方约定如果Ms Li 在5年内没有拿到签证，那么Mr Wang 就要全额退款，双方进一步约定，在合同签订后支付500K, 在Ms Li 拿到工作签证后，支付后面的500K, 初审法院的法官认为，合同的目的是非法的和合同做了误导和欺诈不是同一个概念。Mr Wang 代表 T&S 并没有承诺签证一定会下签，所以ACL的S18并不适用。
Fiduciary duty 在移民欺诈案中的应用
Plaza Carpark Pty Ltd v Chor Shing Ma [2010] FCA 449
as per para 50
It is also uncontroversial now that that rule applies whether or not the person in the position of a fiduciary acted fraudulently or with good intent, or acted knowingly in breach of that rule or in ignorance of it: Phipps v Boardman [1967] 2 AC 46; Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178. Thus in Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378, Lord Russell of Killowen said at 386:
The rule of equity which insists on those, who by fiduciary position make a profit, being liable to account for that profit, in no way depends on fraud, or absence of bona fides; or upon such questions or considerations as whether the profit would or should otherwise have gone to the plaintiff … or whether the plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action. The liability arises from the mere fact of a profit having, in the stated circumstances, been made. The profiteer, however honest and well-intentioned, cannot escape the risk of being called upon to account.
如果欺诈你的人是和你有fiduciary 关系的， 那么不管这个人是否真的欺诈你，或者是出于好心的目的，也不需要证明这个人是明知故犯，或者是出于过失，那么fiduciary 的规则就适用于这种情况。
as per para 49
In Hospital Products, Gibbs CJ said at 67:
A person who occupies a fiduciary position may not use that position to gain a profit or advantage for himself, nor may he obtain a benefit by entering into a transaction in conflict with his fiduciary duty, without the informed consent of the person to whom he owes the duty.
一个人不可以利用他的职位获得好处，或者给自己谋取利益。 否则衡平法要求违法fiduciary duty 的人吐出所有的收益，不管有没有fraud, 或者是不是出于好意，也不需要考虑这种利益是不是正常情况下不会归结于对方，也不考虑对方是否实际上得到了好处。仅仅只需要考虑是否有好处产生。
也就是说，如果和你有fiduciary 关系的人，比如你的会计师，或者你的律师，利用他的特殊的关系得到了好处，那么就可以要求他吐出来。 在Plaza Carpark Pty Ltd v Chor Shing Ma [2010] FCA 449 这个案件中马会计利用他是公司董事的身份，用公司的名义去银行贷款，来支付他的投资款取得公司股份。空手套白狼。 被其他股东发现后，法院判决马会计要全额吐出他空手套白狼获得的好处。