Romance Fraud in China
Han, Bing (2026) — Critical criminological perspectives
Type:
Book Chapter
Country:
China
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
The chapter includes a comparison of traditional romance scams and pig-butchering scams, as indicated by Table 11.1. Stigma of pig-butchering victimisation is described as a barrier to justice and a source of further vulnerability. Stigma associated with fraud victimisation affects reporting rates. The supplied text contains editorial summaries and a table description, but not the full Chapter 11 text.
Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)
The supplied summaries identify a need to understand pig-butchering as more than financial fraud: culturally constructed gender identities may increase vulnerability, while stigma may shape reporting, investigation, and recovery. The chapter is presented as addressing a comparatively less-covered, nuanced form of interpersonal gender-based harm.
Methods (AI-Generated)
The chapter includes a comparison of traditional romance scams and pig-butchering scams, as indicated by Table 11.1.
Limitations (AI-Generated)
The supplied text contains editorial summaries and a table description, but not the full Chapter 11 text. It therefore does not report the chapter's data sources, sample, analytic procedures, or evidentiary limitations. Claims available here should be treated as high-level conceptual or comparative observations rather than independently assessable empirical findings.
Future Work (AI-Generated)
Further research should examine how Chinese cultural and gender norms, victim stigma, reporting, investigation, and longer-term recovery interact in pig-butchering victimisation. Comparative work should distinguish pig-butchering from traditional romance scams while assessing harms beyond financial loss.
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.