Skip to main content

Sentencing Disparity and Focal Concern: An Assessment of Judicial Decisions on Sha Zhu Pan Cases Collected From China Judgements Online

Fangzhou Wang (2023) — Crime & Delinquency

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

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/00111287231158571 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   China
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, China, Cross Cultural, Cybercrime, Focal Concern Theory, Judicial Decisions, Pig Butchering, Romance Scams, Sentencing Disparity, Victim Experience
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
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
                

            

                    

                
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 assesses how Chinese judges sentence Sha Zhu Pan cases—the money-swindling “pig-butchering” online romance scam—by applying focal concern theory to a cross-cultural crime. Using 172 legal documents drawn from China Judgements Online (involving 531 offenders) from 2019 to 2022, the study builds a quantitative analysis of sentencing outcomes for the Crime of Fraud, focusing on fixed-term imprisonment and the likelihood of probation. The author situates Sha Zhu Pan as a cyber-deviance with unique traits (anonymity, overseas operations) that may shape judicial decisions, and explores whether Chinese sentencing guidelines align with focal concerns about blameworthiness, protection of the community, and practical constraints. The findings indicate that, overall, legal factors predominantly shape sentencing for Sha Zhu Pan offenders, with some evidence that certain cyber-specific variables influence outcomes. Notably, being the principal offender, defrauding larger sums, and earning larger commissions are associated with longer fixed-term sentences. Offenders who operated overseas tend to receive harsher sentences, while employment history appears to predict shorter imprisonment and a greater chance of probation. Post-crime attitudes show mixed effects: paying fines before court and returning gains or funds can reduce sentence length or boost probation chances, whereas obtaining victims’ forgiveness may reduce probation likelihood, a pattern the author attributes to complex interactional factors and court priorities. The study acknowledges limitations, including reliance on document-level data with potential omissions (attorney presence, judge attitudes, health or background factors), possible intercase variability in defrauded money attributions, and the relatively small female sample. It concludes that Chinese sentencing for Sha Zhu Pan largely follows statutory guidance aligned with focal concerns, while also highlighting cybercrime-specific factors that merit further comparative and non-Western research.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Before this study, the paper identifies no empirical English- or Chinese-language research on sentencing factors in Chinese Sha Zhu Pan cases. It also identifies limited focal-concern research on cybercrime and in non-Western, ethnically homogeneous settings. Comparative evidence remains lacking because no known study has examined sentencing disparity for the same cybercrime in China and the United States.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study manually collected China Judgments Online documents returned by the search term “杀猪盘” from May 2019 through March 2022. After relevance and offense-type exclusions, it analyzed 172 fraud judgments involving 531 offenders. Guided by focal concern theory, it modeled fixed-term imprisonment with zero-truncated negative binomial regression and probation among 339 offenders sentenced to under 36 months with binary logistic regression. Measures covered legal, post-crime, demographic, and employment factors.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The legal documents omitted potentially relevant variables, including attorney presence, court level, judicial attitudes, and defendants' background and health. Defrauded-money amounts may represent collective rather than individual conduct, and documents did not specify each offender's allocated share. The small female subgroup limits gender estimates. Selective uploading or deletion on China Judgments Online may bias the sample. The study includes only people convicted of fraud, excluding other participants who facilitated Sha Zhu Pan operations.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should examine unmeasured factors and interactions, including attorney presence, court-level factors, judges' attitudes, and defendants' backgrounds or health. It should obtain detailed law-enforcement information on each offender's share of fraud proceeds; use larger samples to assess gender differences; include defendants convicted of offenses other than fraud; and compare sentencing for online romance scams in China, the United States, and other non-Western countries.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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