川观新闻记者 张庭铭 大家好，我是春节假期依旧来普法的主播小铭。这次，我们来说的事情，是与彩票有关。今天，"彩民 随手扔掉千万彩票2天才发现"的话题冲上了微博热搜。 事情，大概是这样的。据中国体彩报报道，河北省唐山市的一家体彩店被当地体彩中心通知喜中大乐透 一等奖。然而，这张彩票的购买者购买当时以为没中奖，随手将彩票扔在店里。幸运的是，这家店一直 有将购买者丢弃的废票保留在固定的箱子里两天的习惯。终于，在体彩中心工作人员和体彩店店主的查 找下，那张幸运的彩票重现眼前。 王仁根律师告诉小铭，根据《彩票管理条例》规定，彩票不记名、不挂失，实行持票兑奖原则，中奖彩 票原件是唯一有效兑奖凭证，只要彩票完好、在兑奖期限内，持有人即可办理兑奖。 相关话题来了，丢失的彩票如果中奖了，还能要回来么 ？为此，小铭今天邀请到了四川分忧律师事务 所主任王仁根律师来告诉你背后的法律知识。 如果有证据证明彩票所有权归失主所有，那么捡走彩票者拒不归还的话，则构成法律上的不当得利，失 主可以向法院提起诉讼要求返还。 王仁根律师说，具体到这个事件中，该中奖彩票属于购买者记错开奖日期从而产生判断错误遗弃的，且 该张彩票未被他人占有、未损毁、未 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of marriage brokerage services in China, particularly regarding the introduction of foreign partners and the potential for contract invalidation due to regulatory violations [1] Group 1: Legal Framework - Domestic marriage introduction agencies are prohibited from engaging in or indirectly conducting foreign marriage introduction services, making the contract between the agency and the client invalid [1] - According to the Civil Code, if a contract is deemed invalid, any property obtained through that contract must be returned, which means the agency should refund the 60,000 yuan fee as it constitutes unjust enrichment [1] Group 2: Potential Legal Actions - The sudden disappearance of the foreign spouse after one year may indicate marriage fraud, allowing the client to report the matter to law enforcement to pursue legal action against the foreign individual [1]

Core Viewpoint - A human resources employee in Suzhou mistakenly transferred 690,000 yuan (approximately 106,000 USD) to a former tenant due to a busy year-end schedule, leading to a complex recovery process involving police intervention [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The employee, identified as Ms. Li, accidentally transferred 690,000 yuan to a former tenant's account instead of the intended company account due to a busy workload and oversight during the year-end financial activities [1]. - Upon realizing the mistake, Ms. Li contacted the recipient, who initially agreed to refund the amount but later changed their stance, demanding police involvement for the refund [1][2]. Group 2: Police Involvement - The local police in Suzhou were alerted and confirmed that the incident was a result of operational error rather than fraud, emphasizing the urgency due to the large sum involved and the potential for the recipient to transfer the funds [4]. - The police coordinated with local authorities in Yunnan to implement temporary risk control measures on the recipient's account to prevent the transfer of funds [4]. Group 3: Resolution Process - After multiple communications, the recipient agreed to refund the full amount, with the condition that Ms. Li would travel to Yunnan to complete the transaction under police supervision [4][6]. - Upon arrival in Yunnan, the refund was successfully processed in the presence of local police, leading to a relieved and emotional response from Ms. Li [6]. Group 4: Legal and Financial Implications - Legal experts noted that the recipient of the mistakenly transferred funds is liable for unjust enrichment and must return the amount, as per the Civil Code [11]. - The incident highlights the importance of retaining evidence and promptly reporting such errors to authorities to facilitate recovery and protect financial interests [9][10].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around a consumer, Mr. Yang, who faced a situation where a merchant did not refund the price difference after a product exchange, leading to a complaint and subsequent resolution [1] - The local consumer association emphasizes that once a consumer places an order and makes a payment, a contract is established, and any unilateral changes by the merchant may constitute a breach of contract [2] - The consumer has the right to fair trading conditions, including quality assurance and reasonable pricing, and can refuse any coercive trading practices by the merchant [2] Group 2 - The consumer association advises merchants to clearly communicate important information such as product details, usage instructions, and return policies to protect consumer rights [3] - Consumers are encouraged to retain evidence such as transaction screenshots and payment receipts when encountering unfair terms like "no refund on price difference" during exchanges [3]

Core Points - The case revolves around a dispute regarding the payment of a guarantee fee of over 5.45 million yuan, which the defendant Wang claimed was held temporarily based on a compensation agreement, while the plaintiff argued it constituted unjust enrichment [2][4][9] - The court ruled that the defendant's receipt of the funds was based on a valid contractual obligation under the compensation agreement, thus not constituting unjust enrichment [6][9] Group 1: Investment Agreements - In February and November 2011, the parties signed two joint investment agreements to establish a private equity investment fund, detailing investment proportions and profit-sharing mechanisms [2] - In June 2014, the investors signed an investment memorandum to convert the fund investment into shares of a company listed on the New Third Board, with Wang acting as the representative for shareholding [2] Group 2: Guarantee Fee Agreement - In June 2014, Wang signed a compensation agreement stipulating that if the annualized return on the shares exceeded 15%, 20% of the excess would be paid as a guarantee fee to a third-party investment company [2] - The agreement served as a risk-hedging arrangement for investment returns [2] Group 3: Payment Dispute - In April 2015, Wang reduced his holdings and was required to pay a total guarantee fee of over 5.45 million yuan, which he communicated to the investors [3] - The plaintiff later discovered that the third-party investment company had not received the payment and demanded a refund from Wang, who refused, citing the ongoing obligation under the compensation agreement [3][4] Group 4: Court Ruling - The court confirmed the legality of the compensation agreement and ruled that Wang was obligated to pay the guarantee fee to the third-party investment company [6][9] - The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, stating that the defendant's receipt of funds was legally justified [6][9]

Core Viewpoint - Elon Musk has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its partner Microsoft, claiming damages between $79 billion and $134 billion due to alleged fraud and breach of the original non-profit mission of OpenAI [3][10]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Musk's lawsuit seeks compensation for his initial investment of $38 million in OpenAI, which he argues should entitle him to a portion of OpenAI's current valuation of approximately $500 billion [5][10]. - The lawsuit is based on the principle of "unjust enrichment," demanding the return of profits generated from Musk's contributions, which he estimates to be between $65.5 billion and $109.4 billion for OpenAI and between $13.3 billion and $25.1 billion for Microsoft [6][7]. - Musk's departure from OpenAI's board in 2018 and the subsequent shift of OpenAI from a non-profit to a for-profit entity are central to the lawsuit, as he claims this transition violates the original mission of benefiting humanity [8][10]. Group 2: OpenAI's Response and Future Plans - OpenAI has responded to the lawsuit, labeling it "baseless" and asserting that its restructuring was necessary for sustainable technology development, denying any legal breach [10][11]. - The company has ambitious plans, including a commitment to invest $1.4 trillion in computing power over the next few years, aiming for a capacity of 30 gigawatts, equivalent to several large nuclear power plants [13]. - OpenAI is also collaborating with Broadcom to develop AI chips and has partnered with Chinese manufacturer Luxshare Precision to produce AI hardware [13]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The lawsuit's outcome could significantly impact the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars and potentially reshape the governance structure and future direction of the global AI industry [20]. - Regardless of the lawsuit's result, it has already made a profound mark on the history of AI development [21].

Core Viewpoint - Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for up to $134 billion, claiming they have gained "unjust enrichment" from his early contributions to OpenAI, which he believes should be returned [1][2] Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Musk's legal filing states that he donated $38 million in seed funding to OpenAI in 2015 and alleges fraud, asserting he is entitled to a significant portion of OpenAI's current $500 billion valuation [1] - The lawsuit emphasizes that this is not a typical investment return dispute, but rather a case of "institutional appropriation" following OpenAI's shift from a non-profit to a for-profit structure [1] Group 2: OpenAI and Microsoft's Response - OpenAI has labeled Musk's lawsuit as a "harassment action," asserting that it is baseless and accusing Musk of launching a "harassment lawsuit" [2] - Both OpenAI and Microsoft have requested the court to limit the testimony of Musk's expert witness, claiming the valuation model presented is "fabricated, unverifiable, and unprecedented" [2] Group 3: Legal Proceedings - A federal judge in Oakland, California, has ruled that the case will be heard by a jury, with the trial expected to start in April of this year [2] - If the jury supports Musk's claims, he could potentially receive substantial damages, including punitive damages and further relief from the court [2]

Group 1 - Multiple public funds, including Allianz Fund, Guotai Junan UBS, Huabao Fund, and Legg Mason Fund, have been taken to court in January 2026 for various disputes, including financial trust management contract disputes, unjust enrichment, and labor disputes [1] - Allianz Fund, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allianz Investment, was established in September 2023 and manages approximately 1 billion yuan, ranking 149th among 164 licensed public fund institutions [3][5] - The case against Allianz Fund involves a claim of unjust enrichment by a plaintiff named Zhang, with a court date set for January 13, 2026 [2][3] Group 2 - Guotai Junan UBS and its well-known fund manager Shi Cheng are facing dual lawsuits for financial trust management contract disputes, which is a rare occurrence in the public fund industry [8] - The core dispute involves the Guotai Junan UBS Jinbao Flexible Allocation Mixed Fund, which has shown a total return of 103.1% under Shi Cheng's management, ranking in the top 14% among similar funds [9][10] - Despite past successes, the fund experienced significant drawdowns, with a peak decline of over 71% in August 2024, leading to poor performance rankings in subsequent years [10][12] Group 3 - Huabao Fund and Legg Mason Fund are also involved in labor disputes, with Huabao Fund facing a lawsuit from former fund manager Chen Long due to labor-related issues [16][18] - Chen Long managed two funds that performed poorly during his tenure, with losses of 54.8% and 46.75%, while the funds saw significant recovery after his departure [18][19] - Legg Mason Fund's former vice president Zhu Jianrong is also in a labor dispute with the company, highlighting ongoing internal conflicts within public funds [19][20] Group 4 - Allianz Fund has clarified that it has no business relationship with the accused party, Feilai (Beijing) Technology Co., and has reported fraudulent activities involving impersonation of its staff [5][7] - The company has warned investors to be cautious of scams and has reported incidents of losses due to fraudulent activities [5][7] - The legal issues faced by these funds may impact investor confidence and the overall reputation of the public fund industry in China [1][8]

Core Viewpoint - The safety of social insurance funds is crucial for every insured individual, serving as a stabilizer for society and a lifeline for the people. A recent case in Beijing highlights the importance of timely reporting of death to prevent unauthorized pension payments [1]. Case Summary - A villager in Shunyi District, Beijing, named Chen, passed away in December 2019, but his family did not inform the local social security office, resulting in the continued disbursement of his pension until April 2023, amounting to over 34,000 yuan [2]. - Chen's heirs claimed they were unaware of the need to report his death to the social security office, as they had already canceled his household registration at the police station. They expressed willingness to return the overpaid pension [2]. Court Proceedings - The court ruled that Chen's pension payments should have ceased the month following his death, as he lost eligibility for benefits. The heirs did not intentionally defraud the system, but they were still required to return the overpaid funds due to the lack of legal basis for continued payments [3]. - A mediation agreement was reached, and the heirs completed the repayment process and terminated Chen's social insurance relationship with the relevant authorities [3]. Legal Insights - Social insurance funds are designed to be fair and equitable for all insured individuals. The law mandates that pension payments stop upon the death of the insured, and any continued payments without legal grounds constitute unjust enrichment [4]. - Families must report the death of insured individuals to the relevant social security institutions within one month to avoid complications. They can also claim legitimate benefits such as funeral subsidies and the balance in the pension account [4]. Definition of "Fraudulent Claims" - "Fraudulent claims" refer to the act of concealing facts or submitting false documents to continue receiving social insurance benefits after losing eligibility, such as due to death or imprisonment [5]. - The law stipulates severe penalties for fraudulent claims, including fines and potential imprisonment based on the amount involved [5]. Warnings Against Fraudulent Claims - Engaging in fraudulent claims may seem like an easy way to gain financially but is illegal and can lead to significant consequences. The system is designed to protect every pension fund through data monitoring and inter-departmental cooperation [6].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released typical civil cases that promote the core socialist values, covering aspects such as family ethics, workplace civility, romantic relationships, and public conduct [1] Group 1: Family Ethics - In the case of Liang vs. Jiang, a parent who renounces inheritance to avoid paying child support can have that renunciation declared invalid, emphasizing the legal obligation of parents to support their children [2][8][9] - The court ruled that the act of renouncing inheritance to evade child support is malicious and harms the interests of the child, reinforcing the principle that parental responsibilities do not cease upon divorce [10] Group 2: Workplace Civility - In the case of Zhang vs. a technology company, the court found that a company that cancels a job offer after the candidate has resigned from their previous job must compensate the candidate for their losses [3][11][12] - The ruling highlights the importance of good faith in employment contracts and the need for companies to honor their commitments to prospective employees [13] Group 3: Workplace Conduct - In the case of Wu vs. a food company, the court upheld the right of an employer to terminate an employee for sexual harassment, affirming that such behavior violates workplace regulations [4][14][15] - The decision underscores the importance of maintaining a respectful and safe work environment, aligning with socialist core values [16] Group 4: Romantic Relationships - In the case of Xiao vs. Zhou, the court ruled that a person who conceals their marital status to receive significant funds from a partner must return the money, as this constitutes deceit [5][17][18] - This case reinforces the principle of honesty in relationships and the legal consequences of misleading behavior [19] Group 5: Public Conduct - In the case of Guo vs. a restaurant and a management company, the court determined that a person who injures themselves while distracted by their phone cannot hold the establishment liable for their injuries [6][20][21] - The ruling clarifies the limits of liability for public space operators and emphasizes personal responsibility in maintaining safety [22]