Skip to main content

Problems and Solutions of Telecommunications and Internet Fraud Crimes of the Type of "Pig Butchering Scams" in Criminal Law Regulation Based on Criminal Law Elements Analysis

Li, Xinyan (2025) — Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.54254/2753-7048/2025.ld29516 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Hong Kong
Tags:   Accomplice Liability, AI-Enabled Fraud, Criminal Law, Cross Border Fraud, Cross Cultural, Electronic Evidence, Emotional Deception, Measurement, Pig Butchering Scams, Romance Scams, Telecommunications Fraud, Victim Experience
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
                

            

                    

                
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 doctrinal legal analysis is grounded in Chinese criminal legislation and judicial practice. The article examines three contested fraud elements-deceptive behavior, victim mistaken understanding, and accomplice subjective knowledge-by comparing theoretical positions, judicial approaches, legal interpretations, and illustrative court cases. The core grooming behavior is gaining trust through a falsely established emotional relationship. Scams employ encrypted social platforms, false identity packaging, and blockchain asset transfers. The article is principally normative and doctrinal rather than an empirical study.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies a lack of criminal-law doctrinal research that systematically breaks down disputed issues in telecommunications fraud. It notes continuing academic-practitioner disagreement and inconsistent judicial outcomes concerning whether emotional deception is fraud, how to establish victims' mistaken understanding, and how to prove accomplices' knowledge. It also identifies operational evidence gaps: electronic chat data may lack verifiable authenticity or integrity, while overseas servers and encryption impede evidence collection and preservation.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A doctrinal legal analysis grounded in Chinese criminal legislation and judicial practice. The article examines three contested fraud elements—deceptive behavior, victim mistaken understanding, and accomplice subjective knowledge—by comparing theoretical positions, judicial approaches, legal interpretations, and illustrative court cases. It then advances interpretive and governance recommendations, including objective standards for victim misperception, holistic evaluation of emotional and property-related deception, and presumptions of accomplice knowledge from objective conduct.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article is principally normative and doctrinal rather than an empirical study. Its conclusions draw on legal theory, selected judicial examples, and cited rules, without reporting systematic case sampling, victim interviews, offender data, or outcome evaluation of recommended technical and regulatory measures. Therefore, the prevalence of conflicting decisions and the practical effectiveness of its proposals cannot be assessed from the text.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop detailed judicial interpretations and typical cases to unify standards for deceptive behavior, mistaken belief, and accomplice knowledge. Improve electronic-evidence preservation and use big data, blockchain and AI for identity, fund-flow and cross-border investigation. Strengthen platform, telecom and financial-institution responsibilities, including real-name registration, suspicious-transaction monitoring and false-information filtering. Expand international judicial cooperation and intelligence exchange against cross-border fraud rings.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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