New Scam Trick in Shenzhen’s New-Home Lottery: Pay a 40,000-Yuan Deposit to Guarantee a 100% Lottery Win; Lawyer Explains Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Investment and Rights-Protection Paths

新股申购中签结果由交易所系统摇号抽签产生，任何机构和个人均无法干预，所谓“内部专属通道”“百分百中签”在证券法框架下根本不存在。2026年9月，邮储银行深圳分行营业部就成功劝阻了一起以“打新保证金”为名的虚假投资诈骗，客户吴先生险些将4万元积蓄转入骗子账户。这起事件虽以银行成功堵截告终，但背后暴露出的法律问题值得每一位投资者和金融从业者警惕：骗子到底触犯了哪些刑法罪名？受害者能否追回损失？普通人在“熟人推荐”面前又该如何用法律武器保护自己？

I. Legal Characterization of "100% Winning Rate": From False Advertising to Criminal Fraud

From a legal perspective, IPO subscription is subject to strict statutory procedures. The Securities Law and the relevant rules of the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges clearly provide that online subscription winning results are generated by the exchange host system through random drawing, and the entire process is open and transparent, leaving no room for any internal channels or manual intervention. The scammers’ claim of a 100% winning rate not only contradicts common securities knowledge but also directly constitutes a false statement.

The question is whether such false statements have crossed the boundary from civil fraud into criminal fraud. Under Article 266 of the Criminal Law, the core elements of the crime of fraud are “fabricating facts and concealing the truth, causing the victim to form a mistaken understanding and dispose of property.” In this case, the scammer fabricated the entirely nonexistent fact of an “internal subscription quota” and, under the pretext of paying a “deposit,” asked Mr. Wu to transfer money, which fully satisfies the elements of the crime of fraud. In judicial practice, as long as the actor, for the purpose of illegal possession, fabricates an investment opportunity to defraud another of funds, he is already suspected of the crime of fraud regardless of whether the fraud was completed. According to 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 Fraud Cases, defrauding public or private property worth 3,000 yuan or more is sufficient to file and pursue the case, and 40,000 yuan already constitutes a “relatively large amount,” punishable by law with fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and with a concurrent or separate fine.

It is worth noting that in such scams, fraudsters often also engage in the illegal securities business. If they absorb funds from unspecified members of the public under the guise of “subscribing to new shares on behalf of clients” or “internal placement,” they may additionally violate Article 225 of the Criminal Law, the crime of illegal business operations; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention, and shall also be fined, or shall be fined only, not less than one time but not more than five times the illegal gains.

II. Acquaintance-Type Scripted Fraud: Why It Is Legally More Difficult to Identify and Hold Those Responsible Accountable

Unlike traditional telecommunications fraud, this case is a typical acquaintance-based scripted fraud. For a long time, the fraudster masqueraded as a seasoned professional with inside industry information, gradually built a relationship by routinely exchanging investment insights and sharing examples of high returns, and only after the victim's wariness had dissipated did he dangle the bait of an exclusive new-share subscription channel. This long-term, highly deceptive modus operandi has created multiple obstacles for the victim in seeking legal accountability.

First, evidence is difficult to secure. Communications between acquaintances often take place through WeChat voice messages, oral promises, and similar means, without written contracts or transfer notes, making it very difficult for victims to prove that the other party fabricated facts. Second, it is difficult to trace the flow of funds. Fraudsters usually ask for transfers to personal accounts or unidentified third-party accounts. Once the funds arrive, they are quickly moved through multiple layers, making it extremely difficult for public security organs to freeze and recover them. Third, the friend identity is ambiguous. In some cases, the fraudster is the victim’s own relative, friend, or colleague, and victims often worry about personal relationships when reporting the case, or are even unwilling to cooperate with the investigation.

Shenzhen lawyers advise in practice that once someone finds they may have been scammed, they should immediately do three things: first, preserve all chat records, transfer vouchers, and the other party’s account information, and have them notarized if necessary; second, immediately dial 110 or go to a police station to report the matter, seeking to initiate emergency stop-payment before the funds are transferred; third, if bank staff have already issued a risk warning, actively cooperate rather than insist on transferring the money—in this case, Mr. Wu ultimately gave up withdrawing the funds, which is a typical example of successfully interrupting the criminal chain after the bank fulfilled its risk warning obligation under Article 15 of the Anti-Telecommunications and Online Fraud Law.

III. Parallel Civil Recovery and Criminal Accountability: How Investors Assert Their Rights

Many victims have a misconception: they believe that after the fraudster is arrested, their losses can only await a court judgment ordering restitution. In fact, the law provides victims with parallel avenues of relief: criminal accountability and civil recovery.

At the criminal level, under Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a victim who has suffered material losses due to a criminal act has the right to file an incidental civil action during the criminal proceedings. If the fraudster is convicted, the court will order restitution in the judgment. In practice, however, fraudsters have often already squandered or transferred the funds, and the enforcement rate of restitution orders is not encouraging.

At the civil level, the victim may, pursuant to Article 148 of the Civil Code concerning fraudulent acts, request the court to rescind the transfer made as a result of fraud and demand restitution of the property. If the funds were transferred out through a bank account, the victim may also assert a claim for tort damages under Article 1165 of the Civil Code. In addition, if a bank, knowing or when it should have known that the customer was being defrauded, failed to perform its risk warning obligation, thereby causing the losses to expand, the victim may even claim that the bank bear corresponding supplementary compensation liability—of course, in this case the bank has fulfilled its warning obligation, so this avenue does not apply.

Shenzhen lawyers handling such cases usually advise victims to initiate criminal reporting and civil preservation simultaneously. By applying for pre-litigation property preservation to freeze accounts or real estate held in the fraudster’s name, the further transfer of funds can be prevented to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, if the fraudster has defrauded multiple victims, they may also consider filing a joint report to consolidate evidence and urge the public security authorities to file a case for investigation as soon as possible.

IV. Compliance Implications for Enterprises and Individuals: How to Identify and Prevent New Share Subscription Scams

Although this case involved an individual investor, it also serves as a warning to companies and financial institutions.

For retail investors, Shenzhen lawyers advise keeping in mind three bottom lines: first, any investment project that promises guaranteed principal and returns or a 100 percent successful allotment violates the basic principle of the Securities Law that investors bear their own investment risks and can be directly deemed a scam; second, legitimate new share subscriptions can only be made through the trading software of licensed brokerages, and there is no so-called internal channel or payment of margin on one's behalf; third, any investment activity that requires you not to tell others or not to go through bank counters should be immediately stopped and reported to the police.

For financial institutions, this case also highlights the boundaries of anti-fraud obligations. Article 15 of the Anti-Telecom and Online Fraud Law explicitly requires banks and payment institutions to establish monitoring mechanisms for abnormal accounts and suspicious transactions, and to provide risk warnings and dissuasion for transfers suspected of fraud. The handling process of the teller and supervisor at the business department of Postal Savings Bank of China Shenzhen Branch was precisely a proper fulfillment of this statutory duty. If a financial institution fails to fulfill its warning obligation, it may face regulatory penalties and even bear supplementary liability in civil cases.

For enterprises, if an employee raises funds from colleagues or clients under the guise of “internal new-share subscription,” the enterprise may bear joint and several liability for failing to fulfill its internal management obligations. Enterprises should establish an employee code of conduct that explicitly prohibits employees from engaging in unauthorized financial activities in the company’s name or by taking advantage of their position, and should regularly conduct anti-fraud compliance training.

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on criminal defense and victim rights protection in the field of financial fraud, and has accumulated extensive practical experience in cases involving fraudulent investment, illegal fundraising, securities crimes, and the like. Whether assisting victims in reporting to the police, applying for property preservation, or helping enterprises build anti-fraud compliance systems, we have always upheld our commitment to protecting every client's property security through legal professionalism. In the face of the temptation of 100% allotment success, remember: the law does not protect those who sleep on their rights, much less those who readily trust internal channels.