Livestream selling 'refund-only' scam that exploits merchants: Buyers maliciously request refunds without returning goods, and merchants' deposits are automatically deducted by the platform

Who Gets Targeted

Affected merchants are mostly small and medium livestream sellers, self-employed businesses, or fresh produce merchants such as durian sellers, who often depend on platform traffic to survive; after deposits are deducted, their cash flow breaks. Their psychological weaknesses are 'settling things quietly, fearing bad reviews and ranking demotion, and fearing platform store closure.' Faced with malicious refunds, they often choose compromise rather than calling the police, which makes the black industry more rampant. Some victims are female shop owners over 65, with high rights-protection costs and little understanding of platform appeal rules; they travel thousands of miles to pursue claims but are treated by the platform as a dispute rather than fraud, suffering secondary victimization.

骗局怎么运作

• Gray-industry gangs place concentrated orders in livestream rooms for high-ticket or perishable goods (such as fresh durians, bracelets, women's clothing). Immediately after receipt, they file refund-only requests claiming 'product quality defects / fresh produce spoilage / inconsistent with description.' Using the platform's 'instant refund' rule, the platform automatically deducts the merchant's deposit to complete the compensation, while the goods are never returned, achieving zero-cost possession of goods.
• Using a matrix of multiple accounts to operate in batches, the same person frantically placed more than 1,700 orders in over 20 days and made 2,700 malicious refunds. Platform risk control rarely triggers manual review for low-value abandoned orders. Through siphoning deposits, the gang accumulated hundreds of thousands to over one million yuan of merchant payments, forming a scaled gray industry.
• In scripts, they pressure merchants' various psychological weaknesses: first soften merchant vigilance with 'applying for a refund for a small problem is normal,' then threaten with 'if you disagree, I will complain to the platform, leave bad reviews, report livestream violations to trigger ranking demotion and account ban,' forcing merchants to agree to refund-only without return. Some gangs even forge unboxing videos as false evidence.
• In the return process, they forge 'empty package returns' or return completely different items (such as returning old clothes instead of the original goods), and create a delivered tracking record in the express system. The platform determines the return is complete and automatically releases the refund. By the time the merchant opens the package and discovers the anomaly, the platform processing deadline has often passed, and the evidence submission channel is basically closed.
• In livestream selling scenarios, gangs also combine 'goods not matching description + rebate repurchase' scripts to drive traffic, first promising high rebates and gold jewelry repurchase in the livestream to induce large stockpiling (such as 863 bracelets and a 160,000 yuan order). After receipt, they immediately apply for a refund and refuse to return free gifts. Even if the merchant wins the lawsuit, recovery is difficult to enforce.
• Some black-industry actors sell merchants 'guaranteed appeal success' services, claiming internal platform connections or running 'refund tutorial communities,' quoting 8,980 yuan externally. They harvest merchants a second time, disappear after collecting service fees, and are essentially secondary fraud exploiting merchants' anxiety over rights protection.
• Some professional refunders also organize 'refund exchange groups' and openly buy and sell tutorials on social platforms, with clear pricing and profit sharing. They use screenshots of refunds against victim merchants as 'success cases' to recruit downlines, forming a complete gray-industry chain of order scanning, refunds, profit sharing, and tutorial output.

红旗信号（看到这些快跑）

• 🚩 The same buyer account intensively places orders for multiple items in the same category within a short period and applies for refund-only on all of them; return tracking is abnormal, or logistics shows delivered while the merchant never receives the returned item.
• 🚩 The buyer refuses to discuss reshipment or exchange solutions with the merchant, accepts only refund-only, and repeatedly pressures using platform complaints, bad reviews, and reporting livestream violations as the only leverage.
• 🚩 Refund reasons are vague and copy-pasted, such as 'quality issue' or 'fresh produce spoiled,' but there is no corresponding photo evidence, or the photos clearly do not match the ordered goods, and the unboxing video has obvious editing traces.
• 🚩 The return package weight differs significantly from the original product weight; after signing, the merchant finds an empty package, bricks, or other items, and the tracking number does not correspond to the ordered goods.
• 🚩 The gang operates in batches through multiple low-credit accounts; orders cluster in a certain period and region, refund reasons are highly homogenized, and it is suspected to be mass siphoning of deposits.
• 🚩 The merchant receives a large number of refund-only requests within the appeal window, but the platform automatically deducts the deposit citing 'consumer rights protection priority,' and the appeal channel is quickly closed or human customer service does not respond.
• 🚩 Paid communities and advertisements for 'refund-only tutorials' and 'guaranteed appeals' appear on social platforms, recruiting agents to distribute tutorials, which is a clear sign of gray industry.

真实案例

• In June 2026, Shanghai police reported that a man frantically made more than 1,700 online purchases in over 20 days and applied for return and refund on all after receipt; he was criminally detained on suspicion of fraud. The case was exposed by CCTV and became a landmark case of 'refund-only' gray industrialization. Merchant losses were difficult to fully recover because deposits were automatically deducted.
• In June 2026, Ziniu News reported that a man defrauded more than 70 durian merchants through 'refund-only.' Several merchants drove thousands of miles across provinces to report the case, and police confirmed that criminal coercive measures had been taken against him. Most victim merchants were small fresh-produce livestream sellers; after continuous deposit deductions, their cash flow broke. (Source: https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260626A0BCHY00)
• In June 2026, Sina Finance reported that a female makeup artist siphoned 890,000 yuan from merchants through returns and was criminally detained by police. CCTV later exposed the methods of the 'return-clothes sister'; in the arrest scene video, the person involved shouted about pulling strings. The case sparked widespread social concern over the 'refund-only' chaos.
• In July 2026, a 65-year-old female owner traveled 3,000 kilometers to pursue 'refund-only' losses. The buyer involved was ultimately administratively detained for 10 days. The case showed that platform rules favor consumers in 'refund-only' determinations, and merchant rights-protection costs are extremely high. Official media generally regarded this case as a typical warning of e-commerce pitfalls.
• In March 2026, Dafeng 315 reported that a woman spent 160,000 yuan in a livestream to buy 863 bracelets and encountered goods not matching description and scripts inducing her with 'rebates, repurchase, and gold jewelry gifts.' Although she won the lawsuit, she still could not get her money back. The case showed composite fraud characteristics of livestream selling: traffic attraction, induced stockpiling, and refund without return.
• In June 2026, according to Wumian Finance, a female makeup artist used the same method to maliciously refund multiple times, with a cumulative 1,036 malicious returns and about 894,000 yuan involved. After being first published by Phoenix Finance's 'Storm Eye' column, the case was republished by Sina Finance, and the person involved was criminally detained by police. (Source: https://finance.sina.com.cn/wm/2026-06-17/doc-inicthnp7018065.shtml)
• In June 2026, according to Yangtse Evening Post, a man in Huaibei, Anhui, exploited the e-commerce 'refund-only' loophole. He bought durians from dozens of online stores nationwide, applied for refund-only after receipt citing reasons such as spoilage, and resold them locally at low prices. According to incomplete statistics, about 100,000 yuan was involved. Merchants from multiple places rushed to Huaibei to report the case, and the Xiangshan Branch has taken criminal coercive measures against the suspect. (Source: https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260626A0BCHY00)

Official Stance

• In June 2026, CCTV repeatedly reported that 'refund-only' had been ruined by gray industry, exposing that someone maliciously placed 2,700 orders and was later sentenced. It clearly pointed out that frequent refund-only without return can constitute fraud and warned platforms and merchants to strengthen risk control and evidence awareness.
• On May 31, 2026, China E-commerce Legal Network published a warning article titled 'Frequent refund-only without return in online shopping can lead to criminal detention,' citing multiple police notices and criminal law provisions, reminding consumers that malicious refunds may violate Article 266 fraud of the Criminal Law.
• In June 2026, police in multiple places took concentrated criminal coercive measures against malicious 'refund-only' acts; police in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and other places reported multiple related cases. Police reminded merchants to promptly preserve evidence and report suspicious refunds, and not to compromise privately for fear of bad reviews.
• In August 2026, Xinmin Evening News published a special report titled 'Have official flagship stores become free warehouses?' It exposed the arbitrage path of the 'refund-only' gray industry against merchant deposits and called on platforms to optimize rules and distinguish normal rights protection from malicious exploitation.

How to Protect Yourself

• ✅ After receiving a refund-only request, merchants should immediately reject the 'refund-only' option, insist on 'return and refund,' and require the buyer to upload real item photos and an unboxing video. They should complete evidence preservation within the platform appeal window, saving chat records, tracking numbers, and delivery monitoring.
• ✅ In livestream selling scripts, clearly state product attributes, specifications, and after-sales rules. For fresh products, state on the detail page that seven-day no-reason returns are not supported. For high-priced goods, use dedicated express delivery, retain delivery videos, and unique anti-counterfeiting codes to reduce evidence difficulty at the source.
• ✅ When discovering batch refunds from the same account or same region, immediately report to the platform risk control center and apply to freeze deposit deductions. At the same time, report to the local police station in the merchant's jurisdiction, submitting key evidence chains such as express weight comparisons and return package opening videos.
• ✅ Merchants should not trust services on social platforms such as 'guaranteed appeals' or 'refund-only tutorial agents,' and must not pay so-called appeal service fees to unknown third parties to avoid secondary fraud. Regularly follow platform rule updates and official crackdown actions, and join legitimate merchant rights-protection communities to exchange information.
• ✅ Consumers should also be wary that frequent 'refund-only' may cross the criminal law red line. Do not participate in any 'refund tutorial groups' or refund agency services, to avoid becoming an actor in the gray-industry chain or being involved in fraud cases.