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
Type:
Journal Article
Country:
Hong Kong
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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.
AI-Generated Content Notice
The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.
Found a possible error? Request a correction.