I find it very puzzling that this guy is choosing to work 230 hours for free, especially considering that he has zero guarantees that he will ever get that mone

I find it very puzzling that this guy is choosing to work 230 hours for free, especially considering that he has zero guarantees that he will ever get that money back or this exact same scenario wouldn't happen again. As others have noticed, the site takes a 20% fee, which is reasonable if it provides protection in problem situations like this. But if they immediately demand the worker to repay all their income, it's hard to see how they can even justify this 20% fee which is higher than any standard introduction fee in the recruitment sector. If it was me, I'd immediately stop using the website and get a lawyer involved. From the article, it's clear the client has admitted the work was done and used a credit card that wasn't theirs. So, at that point either the client has committed a fraud using someone else's card without permission, or was given permission to use the card in the past, in which case it's the cardowner's problem and up to them to sue the client for the money. Whichever, it's not their author's responsibility. So, for him to continue using the site, he must think that the potential future income would cover the lost 230 hours work, which itself seems suspect, as that represents about 1.5 months. He'd have to increase his rate significantly to make that back, so his best option is to find contracts elsewhere.