In Depth: Digital Scammers Find Analog Opportunity Exploiting Delivery Rules

A new form of online scam in China has emerged, where victims are tricked into sending large amounts of cash or gold via delivery platforms like Huolala, helping criminals circumvent increasingly strict electronic banking controls [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3][para. 4][para. 5]. Chen Zhen, a 37-year-old from Beijing, lost hundreds of thousands of yuan over just three days in November 2023 after being lured by promises of easy money in exchange for simple online tasks [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3]. On instructions from a self-identified “operations specialist,” she packed cash—156,000 yuan ($21,700) in one parcel and 326,000 yuan in another—and used Huolala, a popular freight app, to send the boxes, which she falsely declared as “beauty accessories” [para. 3][para. 4]. She only realized she had been duped after the deliveries were completed and reported the scam to police on November 16, 2023 [para. 2].

This scam represents a growing trend in China, where criminals mix online and offline methods to bypass tightened scrutiny by banks and authorities [para. 5][para. 6][para. 7][para. 8]. Traditionally, internet scams relied on electronic transfers, but financial institutions have since increased oversight on large, suspicious, or cross-border payments, making such transactions difficult for criminals [para. 7][para. 8]. Now, scammers instruct victims to withdraw cash or buy gold and send these physical assets using legitimate ride-hailing, courier, or delivery services, thus avoiding the “emergency payment stop” functions banks use to freeze suspect transactions [para. 8][para. 9]. Criminals often further complicate tracking by redistributing assets through multiple couriers and then converting them to digital currencies [para. 12].

Huolala, owned by Lalatech Holdings, dominates the Chinese intracity freight market with a 63.1% share as of 2024 [para. 15]. The company has been working with police to set up warning systems and train drivers to spot suspicious orders since September 2024, helping intercept over 1 million yuan in illicit shipments as reported by drivers between November 2024 and July 2025 [para. 17]. Still, the platform’s design and operational model make it vulnerable: couriers rarely inspect packages, citing time constraints, costs, lack of authority, and fear of customer disputes as key obstacles [para. 30][para. 31][para. 33][para. 34][para. 35][para. 36][para. 37][para. 38].

When Chen sued Huolala for failing to prevent her loss—arguing that their drivers should have inspected shipments for prohibited cash—her case was dismissed by Beijing courts, who noted the police investigation’s priority and echoed the legal ambiguities of platform responsibility [para. 45][para. 46][para. 47][para. 48]. Chinese law only loosely regulates such delivery services, allowing companies like Huolala to self-classify as “information intermediaries” rather than licensed carriers—thus evading strict regulatory oversight and liability for cargo losses [para. 50][para. 51][para. 52][para. 53]. This legal grey area, experts argue, creates significant challenges for accountability and consumer protection and has drawn increasing government and public scrutiny, particularly after high-profile safety incidents involving delivery platforms [para. 57][para. 58][para. 59][para. 60].

Legal specialists suggest that platforms could still be found liable if it is shown they “knew or should have known” about illicit activity and failed to take preventative measures, but Chinese courts currently prioritize criminal investigations, leaving scam victims such as Chen Zhen facing long waits and uncertain compensation [para. 61][para. 62][para. 64]. The incident underscores urgent calls for clearer laws and greater oversight of the rapidly growing online delivery industry in China [para. 53][para. 55][para. 58][para. 63].