Sellers who sell virtual goods deceive buyers and maliciously refund buyers, and buyers deceive sellers.
There are so many frauds on second-hand trading platforms
Reporter Han Dandong
□ Wang Jing, our intern
Not long ago, Mr. Guo from Qujing, Yunnan, spent 50 yuan to buy a game recharge card on a second-hand trading platform. After placing the order, the seller said that he had to click "Confirm Receipt" before he could be given the card number and password. Mr. Guo chose to confirm receipt of the goods first as required, but what he didn't expect was that the card code sent by the seller had already been used.
"This is fraud and I must compensate for my losses." Mr. Guo asked the seller for an explanation many times, but was rejected by the other party.
"When I made the purchase, I saw the link on a third-party shopping platform, and then jumped to a second-hand trading platform." After discovering that he had been cheated, Mr. Guo went to the third-party platform again to check, and the product had been deleted by the seller. Mr. Guo complained to the second-hand trading platform customer service about the seller many times, but the customer service said that the account could only be downgraded but could not compensate for the loss.
Nowadays, second-hand transactions are increasingly favored by consumers because of their price advantages. However, due to problems such as low thresholds and poor management, transactions such as electronic cards can easily be targeted by criminals or use the identity of the buyer to deceive the seller. , or use the identity of the seller to deceive the buyer, "eating from both ends". At the same time, the platform mechanism is also easily exploited and becomes a tool for committing fraud crimes.
Not only that, the platform's "cold treatment" and "invisibility" of users in the process of safeguarding their rights have also made such disputes more serious and made it much more difficult for users to safeguard their rights. As a platform that facilitates the completion of transactions, what responsibilities should it take? With questions, reporters from the Rule of Law Daily conducted an investigation.
Frequent virtual goods scams
Platform intervention is difficult to achieve results
Ms. Liu from Changning, Shanghai is an old user of a second-hand trading platform. She often buys electronic cards such as dining coupons and vouchers at low prices on the second-hand trading platform. She is keen on buying cards at low prices and often finds "leaks".
Not long ago, when she was searching for shopping coupons on a second-hand trading platform, she found that a seller was selling shopping coupons at a price of 20% off the face value. Feeling that she had gotten a big deal, she immediately placed an order. After payment, instead of sending the card number and password, the merchant kept urging Ms. Liu to confirm receipt of the goods.
Because the process of purchasing an electronic card was different from the previous one, Ms. Liu realized that she might have been cheated and immediately asked the seller for a refund, but the seller refused. So Ms. Liu directly applied for the platform to intervene.
It is understood that the customer service intervention of this second-hand trading platform requires both buyers and sellers to upload vouchers, and the platform will then judge the responsibilities of both parties based on the vouchers. In the end, the platform determined that the seller had not shipped the goods, and Ms. Liu also received a refund.
If Ms. Liu encountered a more common electronic card scam, then Xiaoxi in Guangzhou, Guangdong encountered an "upgraded version" scam.
When Xiaoxi was browsing electronic cards on a second-hand trading platform, he clicked on the seller ranked first in the search interface to place an order. The price was very cheap. The seller said that these cards came from within the company and it was not convenient to display the order directly on the platform. The purchase needed to be made through Some specific steps, "The merchant made a video call to me at that time and said that he needed me to buy a shopping card for a supermarket on a third-party shopping platform. After taking the photo, he would send me the card code of the electronic card."
Xiaoxi followed the seller's steps to take a picture of the supermarket card. At this time, the seller sent Xiaoxi a QR code and asked Xiaoxi to scan the code to see the card secret. When Xiaoxi scanned the QR code, he found that the card code could not be used, and the supermarket card he purchased before showed that it had been used.
Xiaoxi immediately contacted the customer service of the second-hand trading platform, but the customer service rejected Xiaoxi’s complaint and report on the grounds that he had not traded on the platform. “I chose the number one store at that time, thinking that the more people buying it, the safer it would be, but I didn’t expect that I was still cheated. Although I did not trade on the second-hand trading platform, the platform was deceived when the buyer encountered the problem. Despite the situation, it still hasn’t done anything with the seller’s account, but just emphasized that it has no authority to deal with this matter.”
The reporter searched with the keyword "electronic card" on social platforms and found that there are endless electronic card fraud schemes. Some sellers ask buyers to buy supermarket cards, and some ask buyers to buy recharge cards, but all scammers lure buyers to third-party platforms. Place an order and transfer the charges to the purchased card by logging into the buyer's account.
E-card scams don’t just fall for buyers, but sellers as well. Ms. Li, who lives in Foshan, Guangdong, recently encountered an incident where her electronic card was defrauded by a buyer.
Ms. Li had an unused electronic card, so she listed it on a second-hand trading platform and planned to sell it. However, because she was not familiar with the platform mechanism, after the seller took the photo, she immediately sent the card number and card secret to the seller, " At that time, I was still curious about why the money was delayed, so I quickly contacted the seller and found that the seller had canceled the account."
After being deceived, Ms. Li was not only angry at what the scammer did, but also felt very confused about the platform's mechanism. "After the scammer took the picture, the platform showed that the buyer had already taken the picture, so I thought he had already taken the picture and paid for it. I posted my experience online and found that many people had been deceived in this way."
She believes that the platform should remind the seller that the other party has taken the photo but has not paid, instead of using vague words so that users cannot judge. Later, she contacted the customer service of the platform, but the customer service believed that Ms. Li sent the card secret to the other party voluntarily, and the responsibility lay with her.
Currently, Ms. Li is still negotiating with customer service, hoping that the platform can give her an explanation.
Coincidentally, in January this year, Ms. Wang from Jixi, Heilongjiang released a "virtual transaction electronic card" product on a second-hand trading platform, with a price tag of 480 yuan. "I saw the buyer taking the product, but I was negligent and did not pay it back clearly. I sent the card details without paying, and when I realized that I had read it wrong, the message showed that it could not be read back, and the buyer did not pay." Ms. Wang said angrily.
Subsequently, Ms. Wang urged the buyer to pay many times, but did not receive a reply. It always showed "read". "I urged several times and when I said I wanted to report him, I was blocked directly." Only then did Ms. Wang realize that she had been tricked.
Ms. Wang contacted the platform customer service many times to complain about this buyer and asked the customer service to provide the buyer’s contact information. The staff kept saying that they were “resolving the problem, please wait patiently”, but they did not provide contact information.
Buyer maliciously returns or exchanges goods
Seller’s appeal to defend rights failed
In addition to electronic card transaction scams, malicious returns and exchanges of goods are another major pitfall on second-hand trading platforms.
Yao Wen from Xinyang, Henan Province put a lipstick on a second-hand trading platform in May last year. Unexpectedly, someone took a photo of the product as soon as it was released. Yao Wen felt a little lucky for this. "I carefully took pictures of the product's internal and external packaging and the details of the lipstick, to reassure the other party, but I didn't expect that the product was maliciously returned, and what was returned was another lipstick," Yao Wen said.
It turned out that the buyer rejected the goods on the grounds that the lipstick was damaged when receiving the goods. The platform allowed the buyer to reject the goods based on the voucher uploaded by the buyer. So, Yao Wen quickly contacted the platform’s customer service and uploaded the certificate showing inconsistent lipstick models. However, the customer service determined that the buyer was not responsible because the buyer had rejected the product, and Yao Wen’s appeal was rejected by the platform.
After the buyer rejects the lipstick, the order is automatically closed and cannot be further processed through the "small court" within the platform.
The "small court" that Yao Wen refers to is the dispute resolution mechanism set up by the second-hand trading platform for buyers and sellers. Both parties upload their credentials for adjudication by other users. "Small court" is the main method for adjudicating buyers and sellers. The platform puts the decision-making power of cases in the hands of digital reviewers who randomly turn over the cards in the system. The reviewers vote for the buyers and sellers. Whoever can get 9 votes first will be the winner. The winner in this dispute will be "bankrupt" in trust, and the loser will be "bankrupt" in trust, but Yao Wen is no longer able to use the "small court" to fight for her own rights and interests.
"Even if you upload the voucher, it won't help." Yao Wen sighed and added, "After the post about the exchange of goods was sent out, someone contacted me and said that they met the same buyer and still got the goods exchanged through the same steps. , the platform did not take any measures after the goods were maliciously exchanged, and I feel that the platform mechanism is to encourage the 'morale' of scammers."
Mr. Xu from Liuzhou, Guangxi also encountered malicious returns and exchanges by buyers. He also believed that the platform’s mechanism could not protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
Mr. Xu sold his idle mobile phone on a second-hand trading platform. After the buyer got the phone, he applied for a return and refund to Mr. Xu on the grounds that the phone could not be turned on and was seriously damaged. Mr. Xu was puzzled by this, "I At that time, I took a lot of detailed videos and asked the other party to confirm the status and packaging of the phone. However, when the other party got it, the phone could not be turned on, and the damage was different from the phone I was selling. My phone had a tempered film. There was no mobile phone in the other party’s video.”
For this reason, Mr. Xu rejected the other party’s application, and the buyer chose to open a “small court” process.
"We all uploaded the certificates at that time, and in the end the 'small court' decided that I won the case because I won one vote over the other party." Mr. Xu explained to reporters. Just when he thought the matter was going to end, the buyer made another appeal to the platform. After filing a complaint, the platform asked Mr. Xu to upload a red seal certificate from the logistics company to prove that the mobile phones before and after were different.
The reporter asked why the other party could continue to appeal after the "small court" won. Mr. Xu explained: "After a dispute occurs, users can describe the problem on the platform and submit the dispute to the 'small court'. In the 'court session' Within the first 72 hours, both parties need to provide relevant evidence to support their claims. Next, the 17 reviewers will vote. The party that gets 9 votes first will win. But if the difference is within 4 votes, you can continue to appeal to customer service , and I failed in the second appeal.”
Mr. Xu was puzzled: “The platform required a red stamp to prove that I had uploaded it myself, but the platform decided that I needed to take responsibility because the express company said ‘uncertain’ when I contacted it, and never asked the buyer to issue a red stamp. prove."
Mr. Xu told reporters that he has compiled the vouchers and is preparing to call the police, but because he does not have the buyer’s information, there is a high probability that the case will not be filed.
If review obligations are not fulfilled
The platform bears joint and several liability
Experts interviewed said that platform standards are not uniform, prompts are inaccurate, and no measures have been taken against fraudulent accounts on the grounds of third-party transactions. All signs show that there are still a lot of problems in some second-hand trading platforms. Correction still requires clear legal regulations and strict market supervision. Of course, platform optimization mechanism is the most important step.
After a seller is lured by a buyer on a second-hand trading platform to purchase an electronic card on a third-party platform, and then the electronic card is stolen, what kind of responsibility does the platform need to bear?
Rao Wei, senior partner of Beijing Tianchi Juntai Law Firm and deputy director of the Consumer Rights Professional Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, said that as an e-commerce platform, the second-hand trading platform should perform necessary audit obligations on the qualifications of merchants settled in the platform. , including but not limited to requiring merchants who apply to enter the platform to sell goods or provide services to submit their identity, address, contact information, necessary administrative licenses and other true information for verification and registration, establish registration files, and regularly verify and update them.
Rao Wei emphasized that e-commerce platforms should also disclose platform service agreements and transaction rules to consumers and merchants, and take necessary measures to provide clear reminders for operations that jump to third-party platform pages through the platform page. After going through the necessary processes mentioned above, if the buyer suffers losses on the third-party platform, he should separately assert his rights to the third-party platform.
“If the second-hand trading platform fails to provide a clear prompt for the operation of jumping to a third-party platform, and fails to conduct the necessary review of the merchants who have settled on the second-hand trading platform, resulting in the buyer being unable to assert rights against the seller, the second-hand trading platform will You face the risk of jointly and severally being liable for damages with the seller,” Rao Wei reminded.
Liu Junhai, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China, said that whether a platform can bear responsibility needs to consider whether it has malicious intent or gross negligence. As a trading intermediary organization, the platform has safety and security obligations towards consumers.
Regarding the doubts of some sellers: the second-hand goods sold were exchanged and rejected by the buyer. After the seller uploaded the voucher, the platform rejected the seller’s appeal. Rao Wei believes that it is necessary to clarify what the seller’s appeal is after uploading the voucher and the reason for the platform’s rejection. What is it? Based on this, we can analyze whether the platform's processing method is appropriate.
Rao Wei said that if the merchant has the order information, product details information, return logistics information and product condition information after receiving the returned goods, the merchant's evidence is sufficient to prove that there is a significant difference in quality between the goods sold and the returned goods received. , the difference is caused by unnatural loss, and the merchant can require the consumer to bear the responsibility of returning the actual sold goods and compensating for losses. In this case, the platform should cooperate with the seller to provide the buyer's basic identity information to assist the seller in safeguarding rights.
Liu Junhai said that the platform first needs to make judgments based on the authenticity, legality and relevance of the uploaded credentials. As the first responsible party, the buyer cannot absolve himself of the blame. If the buyer sets up a fraud, the buyer can be sued to bear relevant civil liability. Secondly, if the platform maliciously colludes with the buyer, it will bear joint and several liability. If there is no malicious collusion, , it is only a gross negligence. In principle, the platform bears the responsibility corresponding to its fault.
Rao Wei suggested that the platform can establish a personal consumption credit evaluation mechanism. For example, on the same platform, if the same buyer returns goods multiple times and faces multiple sellers or multiple complaints about return discrepancies from the same seller, the platform can take necessary prompts. way to prevent losses for platform sellers.
Rao Wei believes that platforms should provide users with basic information about merchants, including but not limited to the identity, address, contact information and other information provided when merchants register, to help users find merchants. If the police intervene in the investigation, the platform should also actively cooperate to advance the investigation progress of the case. If the platform fails to fulfill its obligation to review the qualifications, qualifications and services of merchants, the platform shall be jointly and severally liable for losses incurred by users in accordance with the law.
For merchants’ fraudulent sales behavior, the platform should cancel their merchant qualifications and prohibit them from continuing to sell products or provide services on the platform. At the same time, they should set higher liquidated damages as punishment. If fraud constitutes a violation of public security management, the relevant departments have the right to impose public security management penalties in accordance with the law, including but not limited to fines, administrative detention, license revocation, etc. If serious cases constitute a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. (Rule of Law Daily)