E-Commerce Fraud Crimes In China
Overview of E-Commerce Fraud in China
Legal Framework
Criminal Law of the PRC:
Article 266: Fraud (general provision).
Article 224 & 225: Aggravated fraud cases (large amounts, organized crime, repeat offenses).
Cybersecurity Law & E-commerce Law:
Require platforms to implement security and monitoring mechanisms.
Online fraud is treated as fraud with technological facilitation, often increasing penalties.
Key Elements:
Using e-commerce platforms to deceive buyers/sellers.
Fraudulent intent for property or financial gain.
Often involves large sums or organized operations.
Trends
Common crimes: fake product sales, payment scams, identity theft, fake stores.
Enforcement includes platform cooperation, cross-provincial investigation, and criminal prosecution.
Case 1: Zhang Case (Beijing, 2013 – Fake Online Electronics)
Facts:
Zhang created multiple online shops selling electronics at extremely low prices.
Buyers paid in advance but never received goods.
Legal Reasoning:
Beijing court applied Article 266 (fraud).
Amount involved: 2.5 million RMB, considered a large-scale crime.
Outcome:
Zhang sentenced to 7 years imprisonment; assets confiscated.
Court emphasized the repeat nature and organized operation.
Significance:
Early example of online fraud prosecution.
Court considered scale, organization, and financial loss.
Case 2: Li Case (Guangdong, 2015 – Fake Cosmetics Fraud)
Facts:
Li ran an online store selling counterfeit cosmetics to consumers across China.
Victims reported complaints, leading to investigation.
Legal Reasoning:
Court emphasized consumer protection and deception.
Amount involved: 1.2 million RMB.
Aggravating factors: cross-provincial sales, repeated offense.
Outcome:
Li sentenced to 5 years imprisonment; partial restitution ordered.
Significance:
Demonstrates the link between online commerce and consumer protection in criminal law.
Courts increasingly hold sellers accountable for product authenticity.
Case 3: Wang Case (Shanghai, 2016 – Payment Scam)
Facts:
Wang impersonated sellers on a popular e-commerce platform.
He collected advance payments for non-existent goods.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Article 266 (fraud).
Technology facilitated deception: use of fake accounts and chatbots.
Outcome:
Wang sentenced to 6 years imprisonment; full restitution of victims’ money ordered.
Significance:
Shows how technological sophistication can aggravate fraud charges.
Cooperation with platforms critical for detection.
Case 4: Chen Case (Hubei, 2017 – Fake Education Materials)
Facts:
Chen sold fake online tutoring courses and certificates via e-commerce websites.
Victims were students and parents across several provinces.
Legal Reasoning:
Court noted large-scale deception and public harm.
Amount defrauded: 800,000 RMB; multiple accomplices involved.
Outcome:
Chen sentenced to 4 years imprisonment; accomplices 2–3 years.
Court highlighted education-related fraud as socially harmful.
Significance:
Reinforces that online scams affecting vulnerable populations attract attention and harsher penalties.
Case 5: Liu Case (Sichuan, 2018 – Fake Electronics + Organized Network)
Facts:
Liu operated multiple fake stores selling electronics and household items.
Used shell companies and delivery fraud to deceive buyers.
Legal Reasoning:
Court considered organized, cross-provincial scheme and technological facilitation.
Amount involved: 3.8 million RMB; repeated offenders.
Outcome:
Liu sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; major accomplices 5–8 years.
Full restitution for victims enforced.
Significance:
Highlights courts’ focus on organized and repeated e-commerce fraud networks.
Use of technology increases sentence severity.
Case 6: Zhou Case (Shandong, 2019 – Fake Medical Supplies Online)
Facts:
During public health emergencies, Zhou sold counterfeit masks and sanitizer online.
Buyers paid in advance, goods were fake or never delivered.
Legal Reasoning:
Court emphasized public harm and opportunistic timing.
Fraud amount: 1.5 million RMB; cross-provincial impact.
Outcome:
Zhou sentenced to 6 years imprisonment; assets confiscated.
Significance:
Shows that fraud exploiting public crises is an aggravating factor.
Courts weigh social impact in sentencing.
Case 7: Huang Case (Guangxi, 2020 – Social Media E-commerce Fraud)
Facts:
Huang used social media accounts linked to e-commerce to sell fake travel packages.
Victims nationwide; total loss: 2 million RMB.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied fraud statutes and aggravating factors (technology-assisted, organized).
Huang voluntarily confessed and returned part of the money, considered for mitigation.
Outcome:
Huang sentenced to 5 years imprisonment; sentence reduced due to cooperation.
Significance:
Cooperation and voluntary confession can mitigate sentencing.
Courts recognize social media as a new tool for fraud.
Key Observations from These Cases
Severity of Penalty
Large-scale, organized, or repeated e-commerce fraud → 7–10 years or life in extreme cases.
Minor or one-time scams → 2–5 years.
Aggravating Factors
Cross-provincial or cross-border operations.
Exploitation of vulnerable populations (students, patients).
Use of sophisticated technology or social media.
Fraud during public emergencies.
Mitigating Factors
Voluntary confession and cooperation with authorities.
Full or partial restitution.
Legal Trends
Courts increasingly consider platform responsibility and technological facilitation.
Emphasis on protecting consumers, vulnerable groups, and public trust in e-commerce.
RELATED Blog
comments