Skip to main content

Are fraud victims nothing more than animals? Critiquing the propagation of “pig butchering” (Sha Zhu Pan, 杀猪盘)

Jack M. Whittaker ; Suleman Lazarus ; Taidgh Corcoran (2024) — Journal of Economic Criminology

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100052 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Cross Cultural Language, Dehumanisation, Fraud Classification, Human Trafficking, Investment Romance Fraud, Online Fraud, Pig Butchering, Romance Scams, Victim Shaming
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This theoretical and cultural-critical article examines the Chinese term "Sha Zhu Pan," commonly translated as "pig butchering," through research on dehumanization and moral disengagement. It argues that the metaphor can reproduce offenders' dehumanizing frame, shame or blame victims, and obscure the coercive and organized character of the fraud. The article also compares Chinese and Nigerian offender metaphors and uses a four-stage account - fake-profile targeting, trust-building, fraudulent investment with apparent early returns, and final theft and evidence destruction - to show what the label compresses. This is a conceptual critique based on prior literature, media, and institutional examples, not an original sample of victims, offenders, or media coverage; its claimed social effects are therefore interpretive.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited English-language academic attention to this area and inadequate critical scrutiny of the term’s adoption in media and professional discourse. It highlights conceptual ambiguity: “pig butchering” is inconsistently classified as cryptocurrency, romance, or investment fraud, while reporting systems may force it into unsuitable existing categories. Further research is needed on linguistic framing, cross-cultural variation, and consequences for stigma, reporting, and prevention.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is a theoretical, critical treatment of the Chinese term Sha Zhu Pan (“pig butchering”). It synthesises literature on dehumanisation and moral disengagement, critically analyses the term’s adoption and implications, describes the scam’s four stages using adapted prior models, and compares Chinese and Nigerian offender metaphors for victims. The article draws on academic publications, media examples, and institutional materials to discuss terminology, fraud classification, victim shaming, and policy implications.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article is a theoretical treatment rather than an original empirical study of victims, offenders, media content, or reporting systems. Its claims about effects on victims, reporting, and public perceptions are largely argued from prior literature and illustrative media or institutional examples. It also notes only limited English-language academic attention, which constrains the available scholarly basis for evaluating the term’s dissemination and consequences.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Research should examine how dehumanising fraud labels affect victims’ well-being, stigma, and reporting. It should investigate cross-cultural metaphor use and how language shapes perceptions, conduct, fraud detection, and prevention messaging. The authors also call for policymakers, academia, and law enforcement to assess the effects of the term “pig butchering” and consider non-victim-focused, technique-oriented labels such as “investment-romance fraud.”

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.