Maliciously placed orders over 2,700 times! Over three years, he targeted more than 900 online stores.

A Sudden Large Order

In the e-commerce era, the after-sales mechanism for online transactions is meant to protect consumer rights, but unexpectedly, it has been exploited by those with ulterior motives for profit. On August 27, 2023, Mr. Cao, who operates several daily chemical product stores on a certain e-commerce shopping platform, received a “refund only” request, claiming the product had quality issues, but the buyer, Mr. Chen, did not provide any evidence.

Initially, Mr. Cao thought the other party was trying to take advantage, so he rejected Mr. Chen’s “refund only” request. However, a few days later, Mr. Chen lodged a complaint with the business administration department, alleging that Mr. Cao’s store was engaged in “cashback for positive reviews.” Soon, staff from the business administration department visited to verify his business qualifications, product quality, and whether there were any violations such as inducement of positive reviews, and they conducted an investigation into his invoicing issues, finding no major illegal activities. The staff urged Mr. Cao to negotiate a resolution with the complainant, Mr. Chen, as soon as possible.

Mr. Cao contacted Mr. Chen to negotiate, hoping the other party would withdraw the complaint, but Mr. Chen demanded 500 yuan in compensation, which Mr. Cao did not accept. As a result, Mr. Chen continued to report him, and Mr. Cao’s store was placed on the list of businesses with operational abnormalities, damaging his business reputation.

In the following days, Mr. Cao’s multiple online stores suddenly received a large number of orders, with single order quantities ranging from dozens to hundreds, and amounts ranging from several thousand to over ten thousand yuan. Upon checking the buyer information, Mr. Cao found that all the ordering accounts were “Mr. Chen.” After completing the packaging and courier pickup, the other party immediately applied for a “refund only for undelivered goods,” causing Mr. Cao to lose all costs associated with packaging, delivery, platform services, and promotional expenses. If he chose not to ship, his store would violate platform rules and be penalized for “not shipping on time,” putting his store in a dilemma.

Left with no choice, Mr. Cao proposed a settlement again, but this time the compensation amount demanded by the other party had risen to 5,000 yuan. Ultimately, overwhelmed by the situation, Mr. Cao paid a “settlement fee” of 5,000 yuan. However, after paying the “settlement fee,” Mr. Cao’s store still received a large number of malicious large orders. After failing to get a satisfactory response from Mr. Chen, Mr. Cao reported the matter to the police in October 2023.

The “Empty-Handed Wolf Plan”

On November 8, 2023, the police arrested Mr. Chen and, through questioning and in-depth investigation of his account on the e-commerce shopping platform, discovered that Mr. Cao was not the only victim.

According to Mr. Chen, after watching some consumer rights protection videos online in 2022, he believed he had found a “way to make money.” Subsequently, from trial and error to forming a fixed pattern, Mr. Chen summarized a “three-step” “empty-handed wolf plan.”

“First, I place normal orders on the online store, and after receiving the goods, I fabricate reasons to request a refund only from the platform, essentially hoping to ‘get the goods for free.’” Mr. Chen explained that if the merchant refused, he would complain, citing reasons such as “short weight,” “quality defects,” or “cashback for positive reviews,” demanding compensation from the merchant.

“To avoid trouble, merchants usually negotiate compensation with me. If we can’t reach an agreement, I take the final step: I find all related shops under the name of the online store operator and place bulk orders of dozens to thousands of items, then immediately request unconditional refunds, continuously pressuring the merchants.” Mr. Chen explained that this would cause merchants to incur certain packaging and platform service fees, and to minimize losses, they would often proactively contact him to negotiate, ultimately paying him over 200 yuan in “compensation.”

Upon investigation, it was found that Mr. Chen maliciously placed over 2,700 orders against more than 900 merchants on the e-commerce shopping platform, with involved transaction amounts exceeding 10.3 million yuan, causing losses of over 62,000 yuan in technical transaction fees to the victimized entities (excluding indirect losses such as traffic fees, courier fees, packaging fees, etc.).

The more than 10.3 million yuan in transaction volume was maliciously generated by exploiting the platform’s “order first, refund later” rule. For instance, for a 500 yuan order, he would place an order and immediately apply for a refund, the money was not actually paid, but it was still counted in the transaction volume, and repeated operations could artificially inflate the volume. It was this type of “empty cycle” malicious ordering that caused merchants to unjustly bear the actual losses such as platform technical service fees and prepaid logistics costs.

Forced to Pay “Settlement Fees”

In November 2025, prosecutors began discussions on issues such as the determination of case facts and the applicability of charges.

On August 15, 2025, the case was transferred to the Jiangyin City Prosecutor’s Office for review and prosecution. Prosecutors discovered that among the more than 900 victimized merchants, some stores had only received a single large order before immediately requesting a refund. Regarding whether this type of “single large order” had criminal intent, the procuratorial authorities requested supplementary investigations from the police, focusing on clarifying whether Mr. Chen had malicious intent, whether extortion had been successful, and other criminal facts, as well as investigating the amounts involved and profit situations.

It was confirmed that another six victims were forced to pay a total of 6,400 yuan in “settlement fees” to avoid greater losses to their stores. On December 12, 2025, the Jiangyin City Prosecutor’s Office initiated a public prosecution against Mr. Chen for the crime of disrupting production and business operations. Recently, the court made the aforementioned ruling.

As a new business model with broad prospects, the e-commerce economy still requires protection from all parties to develop in a regulated and healthy manner. “For consumers, reasonable complaints and reports are a supervisory right granted by law, but if they are distorted into threats, extortion, or improper gains, using the guise of rights protection to profit, it crosses the legal bottom line and will inevitably lead to accountability and punishment,” stated the prosecuting attorney. “For operators, consciously regulating business behavior, eliminating violations, and conducting honest and legal operations are the foundations for resisting illegal intrusions; platforms also need to continue strengthening the supervision of transaction behaviors and the improvement of transaction rules, establishing a more intelligent and reasonable identification and early warning system to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and honest merchants.”

Source: Procuratorial Daily · Mingjing Weekly

【Source: Xiling Procuratorate】