Skip to main content

The Crime of "Pig-butchering Scams" in the Securities Market and Legal Regulation

Unknown (2023) — Science of Law Journal

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.23977/law.2023.020106 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   China
Tags:   Chinese Criminal Law, Cross Border Crime, Digital Evidence, Internet Fraud, Investment Fraud, Pig Butchering Scams, Platform Regulation, Securities Fraud
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation 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

            
The publication examines the crime commonly referred to as “pig-butchering scams” within China’s securities market and the related legal regulation. Its purpose is to define the crime, describe its harmful effects, analyze current Chinese legal rules governing the conduct, identify regulatory and evidentiary gaps, and propose directions for improvement in regulation and enforcement. The author proceeds through a structured analysis of how pig-butchering scams have evolved with mobile internet technology, how scammers operate in stock markets, and how courts and security authorities have handled such cases to date. The article outlines distinctive characteristics of pig-butchering crimes in the securities arena, including the formation of professional, multi-layered criminal teams with formalized roles, lengthy fraud lifecycles spanning months, and cross-border elements. It describes typical fraud sequences: cultivating trust, using social platforms to recruit investors, manipulating stock exposure, and transferring funds through various channels to evade detection. The analysis also highlights systemic weaknesses, such as information leakage on third-party platforms, insufficient prevention and early warning mechanisms, and limited regulatory capacity to address cross-border operations and rapidly evolving online platforms. On the legal and policy side, the publication surveys judicial interpretations and statutory developments in China, noting that many pig-butchering cases are treated under general fraud provisions rather than a distinct offense, and that jurisdiction and electronic-evidence handling pose practical challenges. It concludes with proposed avenues for improvement, including precise characterization of related crimes, tighter regulation of criminal counts, and stronger cross-institutional and cross-border cooperation to curb the industry chain and reduce investor losses.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies unclear legal characterization of securities-market pig-butchering scams, inconsistent conviction and sentencing, unclear jurisdiction, and inadequate coordination for collecting third-party digital evidence. It also describes gaps in platform information review, transfer-risk warnings, government oversight, and cross-border coordination.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is a doctrinal and descriptive legal-policy analysis. It defines securities-market pig-butchering scams, compares Internet and telecom fraud, outlines an alleged fraud process and crime characteristics, reviews Chinese criminal and procedural provisions, and proposes legal characterization, sentencing, regulatory, and early-warning reforms. No original data collection or empirical case analysis is reported.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article provides no transparent empirical dataset, case-sampling procedure, or systematic evidence supporting its claims about offender practices, victim characteristics, prevalence, or typical duration. Several conclusions are framed broadly and rely on descriptive assertions. Its legal analysis is centered on Chinese law, limiting direct transferability to other jurisdictions.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop early-warning standards using purchase amounts and activity in WeChat and QQ groups. Strengthen cross-border regulatory and enforcement cooperation with countries hosting fraud infrastructure. Improve legal rules for characterizing offenses, evaluating aiding conduct, and determining crime amounts and circumstances.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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