Bought Real, Returned Fake: 1,036 Returns, RMB 894,000 — When Does a Return Become Fraud?

The short answer

• Returning goods is a statutory right, but it presupposes that the original item goes back and that the goods are intact. Keeping the product and stuffing something else into the parcel is not a return that fails to comply with the rules; it is a false claim that the goods have been returned, made in order to obtain a refund.
• The line between civil fraud and criminal fraud turns on the intent to illegally possess (非法占有目的): what was misrepresented, how far the deception went, and what consequences it produced.
• RMB 894,000 already exceeds the threshold of more than RMB 500,000 for an especially large amount (数额特别巨大). Under Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the PRC the statutory penalty is fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment.
• “Buy real, return fake” schemes of this kind are usually characterised as fraud, not theft, because the refund is disposed of by the merchant itself, acting on a mistaken belief. Only where the goods are swapped and taken without any refund being sought can the characterisation flip.
• Returning the proceeds and paying compensation, and admitting guilt and accepting punishment, can lead to a more lenient outcome, but they do not change the statutory sentencing bracket. A suspended sentence presupposes a sentence of three years or less, which cases of this kind generally do not reach.
• Ordinary returns are unaffected. Seven-day no-reason return (七天无理由退货) is a statutory right and will not be abolished across the board because a few people abuse it.

1. What happened, according to public reporting

Beijing Television’s programme Rule of Law in Progress (《法治进行时》) reported that a 28-year-old makeup artist, Shi, spent four years repeatedly placing orders on e-commerce platforms, giving a fictitious delivery address at which she did not live. Couriers left the parcels piled at the door; she called a same-city courier service to collect them, opened the packaging and took out the goods, stuffed something worthless back into the original packaging, sent it back the same way, and then applied for a refund.

According to the report, she returned goods 1,036 times over four years, involving RMB 894,000. On 10 June 2026 she was arrested by officers of the Dongba police station of the Chaoyang District Public Security Bureau, Beijing, at a gym; she was criminally detained on suspicion of the crime of fraud (诈骗罪) and the case was transferred for review for prosecution. The report also said that in some orders, because the parcel was never delivered into her own hands and was never signed for by her, the courier company ultimately paid.

One point must be made clear: the above is the account given by the media, not a finding in a judgment. What follows explains how the rules operate; it is not a verdict in this case.

2. Return is a right; “intact” is the threshold

Article 25 of the Law of the PRC on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (quoted in part): where goods are sold through the internet, television, telephone, mail order or other such means, the consumer has the right to return the goods within seven days of receiving them without giving reasons; except for goods made to the consumer’s order, fresh and perishable goods, audio-visual products, computer software and other digital goods downloaded online or unsealed, and newspapers and periodicals delivered.

Article 8 of the Interim Measures for the Seven-Day No-Reason Return of Goods Purchased Online: goods returned must be intact — retaining their original quality and function, with the goods themselves, their accessories and trademark labels all complete; opening the packaging in order to inspect the goods, and reasonable adjustment to confirm their quality and function, do not affect intactness. Article 9: where goods are used beyond what inspection and confirmation require, causing a relatively large depreciation in value, they are treated as not intact; for clothing, footwear, headwear, luggage and bags this includes trademark labels removed or cut off, and goods stained or damaged.

Article 19(4) of the Implementing Regulations of that Law (in force 1 July 2024): a consumer returning goods without reason shall follow the principle of good faith and may not use the no-reason return rules to harm the lawful rights and interests of business operators or other consumers.

My summary: these provisions separate exercising a right from abusing it. Opening the parcel to look and trying the item on is exercising the right; keeping the goods and sending back a parcel of rubbish is not a return that falls short of “intact” — it is no return at all, but an exchange of the words “I have returned the goods” for a sum of money.

3. From a civil dispute to a criminal case, what differs is not the amount but the deception

Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the PRC (quoted in part): whoever defrauds public or private property, where the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also or solely be fined; where the amount is large or there are other serious circumstances, to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than ten years, and shall also be fined; where the amount is especially large or there are other especially serious circumstances, to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have property confiscated.

Article 1 of Judicial Interpretation No. 7 [2011] (法释〔2011〕7号): where the value of the property defrauded is between RMB 3,000 and RMB 10,000, between RMB 30,000 and RMB 100,000, or more than RMB 500,000, it is respectively identified as a “relatively large amount”, a “large amount” and an “especially large amount”.

The structure of the crime of fraud has four steps: a false statement of fact or a concealment of the truth; the other party falls into a mistaken belief; the other party disposes of property on the basis of that mistaken belief; the actor obtains the property and the other party suffers loss. Applied to a return: sending back fake goods is the false statement that the goods have been returned as agreed; the merchant’s belief that it is receiving the original product is the mistaken belief; clicking agree to refund is the disposal of property; the money arriving in the account while the genuine goods stay in her hands is the obtaining of property and the merchant’s loss. All four steps are present.

Conversely, a bare dispute in which the goods are defective and the merchant refuses to refund is a civil matter; only deliberately buying genuine goods and returning fakes, repeatedly extracting refunds, enters the criminal field of vision. The difference is not the size of the sum but whether that money was obtained by deception. For a similar line of reasoning, see the article on why taking money from one’s own parents can also constitute fraud.

4. Why it is usually fraud, not theft

The holding (quoted in part) of database entry no. 2023-05-1-221-020 in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database (the Zhu theft case): in property cases where deceptive and surreptitious means are used interchangeably, whether the offence is theft or fraud depends on whether the means that played the decisive role in obtaining the property was taking by stealth or deception; where property is obtained directly by fabrication and deception, the offence is fraud, and where secret taking is the direct means, it is theft. The case also stresses that the victim’s having no intention to dispose of property, and no act of disposal, is the key to excluding fraud.

My summary: here the money was refunded by the merchant clicking refund itself — there was both an act of disposal and an intention to dispose — and what was decisive was the deception, so the route is fraud. Had the goods merely been swapped and taken while no one was looking, with no refund ever sought from the merchant, the property would have been obtained by secret taking and the characterisation could become theft.

A caution: in practice there are also individual cases of buy-real-return-fake prosecuted as theft or as contract fraud; this article describes the prevailing approach to characterisation.

5. Three points of examination, and how a fictitious return address (虚构退货地址) falls squarely within them

The holding (quoted in part) of database entry no. 2023-04-1-222-007 in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database (the Zhang and Sun fraud case, the blind mailing case): in distinguishing civil fraud from criminal fraud, the intent to illegally possess should be examined on three axes. First, the content of the deception — whether it goes to matters that determine the victim’s delivery of property (the type and characteristics of the subject matter, the type of transaction, the composition of the price). Second, the degree of deception — whether there is fabrication of economic strength, false guarantees, a fictitious return address, or obstacles set up to delay refunds, putting the deceived person at high risk of losing any possibility of civil remedy. Third, the consequences of the deception — whether they leave the victim without effective civil remedy, or make the truth difficult to discover.

My summary: here the address was false, she did not live there, and the goods were moved by same-city courier — which falls precisely within the examples given under the second point: when the merchant wanted the goods back after refunding, even the address was empty. Add four years, over a thousand instances and multiple accounts, and the explanation of an occasional mistake in ordering does not hold either.

6. What RMB 894,000 means in law

• The amount is generally calculated by adding up the total refunds obtained; orders placed alternately through multiple accounts are counted together.
• Sums paid by the courier company on the ground that the goods were not signed for, if caused by the same deceptive conduct, may likewise be counted — but each must be established on the evidence, not simply added together.
• Above RMB 500,000 the amount is especially large, with a statutory penalty of not less than ten years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment, plus a fine or confiscation of property.
• Returning the proceeds and paying compensation, and admitting guilt and accepting punishment (Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law), are circumstances for leniency; they can affect the sentence actually imposed but cannot change the statutory bracket.
• A suspended sentence presupposes a sentence of three years or less, which cases of this kind usually do not reach; illegal gains are recovered or an order to make restitution is made, and a fine is imposed separately.

7. What the merchant, the platform and the courier company each bear

The merchant may, under Article 148 of the Civil Code of the PRC, ask for the refund to be set aside as a civil juristic act procured by fraud, demand the return of the original goods or compensation for loss, and report the matter to the police at the same time. The civil and criminal tracks run in parallel; setting the transaction aside does not happen automatically because a case has been opened.

The platform: identifying abnormal returns (the same address, the same account returning the same model at high frequency, parcels coming back at an abnormal weight) is a risk-control duty, not a ground of exemption; but the decision to refund is the merchant’s, and liability lies between the merchant and the person concerned.

The courier company: being ordered to pay because the goods were not properly delivered and not signed for does not change the criminal characterisation; a courier who leaves parcels at the door and walks away is delivering improperly and bears a separate contractual liability.

8. Five rules for ordinary people exercising the right to return

• Return the original item: the goods, accessories, gifts and hangtags all go back together (Article 12 of the Interim Measures for the Seven-Day No-Reason Return of Goods Purchased Online).
• Trying items on and testing them is fine; do not wear them out, soil them or cut off the labels (Article 9 of the same Measures) — that will be treated as not intact.
• Do not use a fictitious address, do not borrow another person’s account, and do not return the same model at high frequency from one account — all of these abnormal features are visible in the back end.
• If the merchant refuses a return, complain through the platform, call 12315, or litigate; do not counter a refusal with a swap — the two are entirely different in nature.
• If a case has already been opened, return the money and pay compensation as early as possible and confess truthfully, and fight the issues on facts and evidence rather than deleting records or changing accounts.

9. Limitations that need to be stated

The case is at the stage of criminal detention and transfer for review for prosecution, and no court has given judgment; the analysis in this article that the conduct constitutes fraud is an application of the rules, not a finding of guilt. The oral-script material is inconsistent on the number of accounts — one place says 27 accounts, another says 227 accounts; the 1,036 returns, the RMB 894,000 and the date 10 June 2026 all come from the same television programme, and no indictment or judgment has been seen, so the official announcements and the judicial documents govern. The charge is contested in practice, and how the amount is calculated varies from case to case; the indictment and the judgment are what ultimately determine it.

If you have had a return refused, been labelled by a platform as a malicious returner, or received a summons from the police, you are welcome to contact Wang Xin: telephone 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 买了真的、退回假的，4年1036次骗了89万：七天无理由退货，从哪一步变成诈骗罪？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.