Shanghai woman detained for only refunding 400 items in 3 months, lawyer explains when malicious refunds constitute fraud

Lead

A woman in Shanghai used the "refund only" rule on an e-commerce platform to handle more than 400 orders within three months, and was recently subjected to criminal coercive measures by the public security organs. This case is not an isolated case, as it has exposed a long overlooked legal loophole in the online shopping ecosystem: when consumer rights protection rules are transformed into profit-making tools, where is the boundary between civil disputes and criminal offenses? From a lawyer's perspective, this not only involves the determination of the constituent elements of fraud, but also affects multiple legal issues such as platform rule design, merchant rights protection path, and consumer integrity system.

The legal nature and abuse boundary of refund only rules

'Refund only' is an after-sales mechanism launched by major e-commerce platforms to enhance the consumer experience. It is usually applicable to situations where there are quality issues with the product, the merchant sends the wrong item, or the logistics is severely delayed. From the perspective of contract law, when a consumer places an order, it constitutes an offer, and when a merchant confirms delivery, it constitutes a commitment, and both parties establish a sales contract relationship. Consumers have a legitimate right to claim breach of contract liability and demand a refund or exchange based on Article 577 of the Civil Code.

But the exercise of rights has boundaries. Article 132 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects shall not abuse their civil rights to harm national interests, public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others. When consumers repeatedly apply for refunds with fictitious reasons without receiving the goods or without substantial problems, it has already exceeded the scope of legitimate rights protection. In judicial practice, the court's determination of "abuse of the right to refund only" usually considers several factors: whether the frequency of application is abnormal, whether the reason for refund is true, whether the actual state and description of the product match, and whether consumers have obtained improper benefits from it.

In this case, the operating frequency of over 400 orders in three months has clearly deviated from the reasonable range of normal consumer rights protection. This large-scale and routine operation mode is closer to the behavior of "illegal possession as the purpose" in law, rather than a simple consumer dispute.

The legal logic of malicious refunds constituting fraud

Many consumers have a misconception: they believe that only refunding is just "shearing wool", at most being banned, and will not involve criminal offenses. This understanding is dangerous.

According to Article 266 of the Criminal Law, fraud refers to the act of obtaining large amounts of public or private property by fabricating facts or concealing the truth with the purpose of illegal possession. Malicious refund behavior may fully meet this constitutive requirement: consumers fabricate product quality issues, forge photo evidence, falsely claim not to have received the goods, causing the merchant or platform to fall into a misunderstanding and agree to a refund, ultimately resulting in the merchant losing payment. In this chain, fictitious facts are the means, the disposal of property by merchants is the result, and illegal possession is the goal. The three elements are complete.

According to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Fraud, if the value of public or private property defrauded is between 3000 yuan and 10000 yuan, it shall be deemed as a "relatively large amount". The specific implementation standards vary slightly in different regions, but in most areas, the threshold for fraud is set between 3000 and 6000 yuan. Based on over 400 transactions, even if the individual amount is not high, the cumulative amount is likely to have exceeded the criminal filing standard.

More importantly, since 2024, public security organs in many parts of the country have begun to crack down on large-scale malicious refund behaviors. Similar cases have been filed and investigated for fraud in Shanghai, Zhejiang, Guangdong and other places. This sends a clear signal that malicious refunds are no longer a credit issue within the platform, but rather an illegal act that may face criminal prosecution.

Legal response path for merchants and platforms

For victimized merchants, facing malicious refunds is not just about passively enduring them. From a practical perspective, merchants can take the following legal actions:

Firstly, the evidence is fixed. Merchants should promptly save electronic data such as order records, chat records, refund application screenshots, logistics information, etc. According to the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations, electronic data belongs to the category of statutory evidence, but its integrity and authenticity need to be guaranteed. It is recommended to fix key evidence through notarization or blockchain certification.

Secondly, platform complaints and appeals. Merchants can appeal to the platform based on platform rules and request the platform to verify abnormal refund behavior. If the platform fails to fulfill its reasonable review obligations and causes the merchant's losses to expand, the merchant can also claim that the platform bears corresponding responsibilities in accordance with Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law.

Thirdly, criminal reporting. For malicious refund behavior suspected of fraud, merchants can report it to the public security organs. When reporting a case, it is necessary to provide a complete chain of evidence, including refund records, proof of the actual condition of the goods, and materials of consumer fabricated facts. If the public security organ deems that it meets the conditions for filing a case after examination, it shall file a case for investigation.

Fourth, civil litigation. Merchants can also file a lawsuit for infringement with the court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Code of the Civil Code, demanding that malicious refunding parties return the payment and compensate for losses. Although the amount of a single case may not be large, the winning judgment itself has a deterrent effect.

From a platform perspective, Article 32 of the E-commerce Law stipulates that e-commerce platform operators shall follow the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality in formulating platform service agreements and transaction rules. When designing refund only rules, platforms should establish a reasonable risk control mechanism to identify and restrict abnormal refund behavior, rather than transferring all risks to merchants.

Dual compliance insights for consumers and businesses

This case has sounded the alarm for both consumers and businesses.

For consumers, it is necessary to clarify a basic legal understanding: refund only is a right, not a benefit. Legitimate rights protection is protected by law, but fabricating facts and engaging in malicious arbitrage may violate criminal law. Even if the single amount is small, it may still meet the criminal filing standards after multiple accumulations. In addition, according to Article 49 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments, those who defraud public or private property may face administrative detention and fines even if they have not yet met the criminal prosecution standards.

For merchants, they cannot compromise blindly in the face of malicious refunds. Establishing a sound evidence retention mechanism and promptly reporting abnormal situations to the platform and public security organs are effective means of reducing losses. At the same time, merchants should also examine their own product quality and service level, and reduce the occurrence of refund disputes from the source.

For platforms, the design of refund only rules needs to find a balance between protecting consumer rights and the legitimate rights and interests of merchants. Overly tilted rules not only breed moral hazard, but may also lead the platform itself into legal disputes.

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has accumulated rich practical experience in such cases. Whether it is a merchant who needs to file a criminal report or civil lawsuit for malicious refunds, or a consumer who needs legal defense for alleged fraud in refund disputes, the intervention of professional lawyers can help the parties identify their position and protect their rights in complex legal procedures. The legal boundaries of online transactions are gradually becoming clearer, and only compliant operation and honest consumption can truly promote the healthy development of the e-commerce ecosystem.