Skip to main content

Policing telecommunication and cyber fraud: Perceptions and experiences of law enforcement officers in China

Jia Qu ; Hongming Cheng (2024) — Crime, Law and Social Change

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:
  • 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

This publication presents a qualitative inquiry into how Chinese law enforcement officers perceive, investigate, and respond to telecommunication and cyber fraud. The authors interview frontline officers to illuminate police views on fraudster characteristics, victim profiles, crime typologies, investigative processes, and the practical measures used to reduce victimization. The study situates its analysis within China’s enforcement architecture, highlighting the Telecommunication and Cyber Fraud Enforcement Teams (TCFETs) and the centralized Chinese Anti-Fraud Centre (CAFC), which coordinate reporting, information sharing, and case management. Findings describe a diverse and evolving fraud landscape observed by officers. They report multiple common schemes, including refund scams, online loan scams, brushing (recruitment-based fraud), romance scams, and investment-related fraud, with officers noting that these types account for a substantial share of incidents and losses in official reporting. The paper also conveys officers’ impressions of fraudsters as organized but variably sophisticated, and it documents perceived victim patterns, such as younger women in certain contexts and middle-aged or wealthier individuals in romance or investment scams. The investigation relies on casework and the money trail, information flow, and technical platform links, while acknowledging constraints in financial investigation, evidence collection, cross-border enforcement, and staffing and training. Limitations acknowledged by the authors include a small, regionally bounded sample of five areas and the qualitative design, which may limit generalizability. The discussion emphasizes policy implications such as expanding public awareness, enhancing interception capabilities, and promoting international and private-sector collaboration, while calling for ongoing training and longitudinal assessment of interventions. The article thus presents a source-grounded, interview-based portrait of China’s anti-fraud policing in the digital era.

Identified Gaps

The paper identifies limited research on how law-enforcement agencies and officers perceive and handle telecommunication and cyber fraud. It also notes a relative lack of research on victims' experiences. The study addresses the police-perspective gap but indicates that broader stakeholder perspectives remain needed.

Methods

Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 current Chinese Telecommunication and Cyber Fraud Enforcement Team officers. Participants were purposively recruited through professional networks and referrals across five regions. Interviews lasted 60–90 minutes, were conducted in Mandarin, transcribed, translated with back-translation, member-checked, and coded collaboratively using NVivo 12 and paper annotations.

Limitations

The study used a small purposive sample of 12 officers from five Chinese regions. Although appropriate for an initial qualitative investigation, findings may not transfer to other law-enforcement contexts. The data reflect officers' accounts rather than those of victims, technology companies, or financial institutions. Data are not publicly available because of ethical considerations.

Future Work

Expand and diversify the law-enforcement sample; examine perspectives of victims, technology companies, and financial institutions; and conduct longitudinal studies assessing how interventions and policy changes affect fraud prevalence and patterns over time.

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