In Depth: Digital Scammers Find Analog Opportunity Exploiting Delivery Rules

The article details the case of Chen Zhen, a Beijing resident who lost hundreds of thousands of yuan to a scam that combined online fraud with the physical delivery of cash via a freight delivery app, Huolala. Chen was approached by an “operations specialist” and lured by the promise of easy money for simple online tasks. Within just three days, she sent two parcels containing a total of 482,000 yuan (about $67,000) to scammers by following their detailed instructions, which included disguising the cash as “beauty accessories” and adding items like flowers or milk to make the package appear as a gift. Both parcels were successfully delivered to scammer-specified locations via Huolala drivers, despite the suspicious circumstances [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3][para. 4][para. 5].

This incident exemplifies a new trend in China whereby scammers exploit delivery and ride-hailing services to physically move cash or gold, circumventing tightened banking controls on large or suspicious electronic transfers. Caixin reports that this modus operandi gained prominence in late 2023 and has resulted in hundreds of millions of yuan lost by victims. For example, police in Guangzhou intercepted nearly 29 million yuan in illicit cash deliveries in the first half of 2024. Scammers induce victims to withdraw cash or buy gold and then use delivery drivers to transport these assets. After receipt, fraudsters often redistribute assets via multiple couriers or convert them to digital funds or cryptocurrency to obscure the trail. Huolala, holding over 63% of China’s intracity freight market in 2024, has frequently been implicated in such scams [para. 6][para. 7][para. 8][para. 9][para. 10][para. 11][para. 12][para. 13][para. 14][para. 15].

As banks and authorities increasingly block suspicious transfers, scammers rely on delivery platforms since they rarely inspect package contents, allowing illegitimate assets to be moved inconspicuously. Although Huolala updated its agreement in late 2024 to call for open-box inspections under certain circumstances and increased driver awareness, these checks remain rare due to time, cost, customer resistance, and limited legal authority. The lack of mandatory inspections and financial incentives makes it easy for courier services to be misused despite company policies [para. 16][para. 17][para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21][para. 22][para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29][para. 30].

Legally, this loophole persists because delivery platforms like Huolala classify themselves as “information intermediaries” — merely connecting users with independent drivers — rather than as licensed carriers, which bear more responsibility for the safety of transported goods. Industry experts note that current Chinese law offers only non-binding guidelines for online freight, with no clear definition of regulatory duties for platforms. This allows companies to evade liability even when their business model assigns orders and collects driver fees, which are typical of carriers. Legal and logistics scholars call into question whether platforms should unilaterally define and limit their responsibilities via user agreements, suggesting that liability should instead be linked to the platform’s ability to prevent and respond to misuse [para. 31][para. 32][para. 33][para. 34][para. 35][para. 36][para. 37][para. 38][para. 39][para. 40][para. 41][para. 42][para. 43][para. 44][para. 45][para. 46][para. 47][para. 48][para. 49][para. 50][para. 51][para. 52].

Past incidents, such as the 2021 death of a passenger using Huolala’s service, have already highlighted gaps in platform accountability and regulatory oversight. Legal opinions suggest that if a platform had the means to prevent crime and failed to do so, it could be held liable under Chinese law. In Chen’s case, she has filed a civil suit against Huolala for lack of supervision, arguing that had the driver inspected her packages, her financial loss could have been avoided. The case underscores the urgent need for clear regulation and accountability within China’s burgeoning gig economy logistics sector [para. 53][para. 54][para. 55][para. 56][para. 57].