Skip to main content

Connecting Chinese and American Scam Victims

Jonathan Reiter ; Bitrace Team (2024) — SSRN Electronic Journal

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

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


              
              

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

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 study uses on-chain tracing and documentary evidence to follow cryptocurrency from identified scam-entry wallets through laundering services and into exchanges. Flow analysis connects victim cases in Florida, California, and China through shared intermediaries and service providers, showing infrastructure that crosses national and scheme boundaries. The documented U.S. cases include a fraudulent investment dashboard and a romance-led fake cryptocurrency application, while the Chinese material includes other wallet and investment frauds. The contribution is therefore a map of common financial infrastructure, not a cross-cultural comparison of victims' narratives or recovery. Only some wallet inflows are proven scam proceeds, exchange totals can over- or under-attribute activity, transaction cycling can double-count funds, and the available cases cannot identify every related operation.

Identified Gaps

Identified gaps include a limited set of four documented cases and lack of comparable court data for all China cases, restricting generalization. Reliance on victim reports, civil-forfeiture orders, and media sources may introduce bias. The analysis acknowledges possible undercounting and non-exhaustive mapping of networks, with no definitive census of scams or laundering pathways beyond the studied wallets and service providers.

Methods

The study uses on-chain tracing of scam-entry wallets through money-laundering services to exchanges, supported by documentary evidence (civil orders, press reports) and an appendix of wallet addresses. It connects Florida, California, and Chinese cases via shared intermediaries and exchanges, employing flow diagrams to illustrate cross-border linkages and the scale of operations.

Limitations

Limitations include: only a subset of inflows to scam-entry wallets is proven as scam proceeds; exchange-deposits total may over- or under-attribute to scams; potential double-counting due to cycling of transactions; China cases lack comparable court documentation; findings are not exhaustive and rely on available records, limiting generalization.

Future Work

Future work should expand the dataset to include more cross-border cases, multiple jurisdictions, and longer time horizons to better quantify scale. It should seek more complete court records and corroborating evidence from exchanges and service providers, develop standardized on-chain attribution methods, and foster international law-enforcement collaboration to improve detection, prosecution, and disruption of pig-butchering networks involved with cryptocurrency.

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