The platform forced on the public by the Chinese Communist authorities to prevent fraud has turned into a “cash machine” for the police. Recently, a scandal in which Jiangxi police colluded inside and outside to sell personal information and arbitrarily freeze bank accounts has been exposed online, sparking heated discussions.
According to a report by China’s Caixin website on May 11, a judgment published on China’s judicial document website revealed that Wang, a man from Fujian, colluded with several police officers in Shanggao County, Jiangxi, to illegally obtain and sell citizens’ bank account information through the national anti-fraud platform of the Chinese Communist regime. They illegally accessed over 170 pieces of citizens’ bank account information for a price of 1000 yuan each, and froze transactions in 27 accounts. The then head of the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau, Yan, received at least 130,000 yuan, which he further distributed to several police officers under him.
On April 27, 2023, Wang, along with Lin and others, arrived in Shanggao County, Jiangxi, and through their connections with Yan, they sought help from him to freeze and block bank account information through the anti-fraud big data platform.
After Yan agreed, he consulted with Chen, the then deputy director. They agreed that Wang would send bank account information through the messaging app Telegram, and Chen would access it, providing feedback to Wang. Yan would receive at least 1,000 yuan for each piece of information accessed, while Lin would receive the same.
On May 9, 2023, Chen used the official digital certificate of Ca, a police officer in the Criminal Police Brigade of Shanggao County Public Security Bureau, to log in to the national anti-fraud big data platform on an office computer to search for the bank account information sent by Wang. Around May 17, Yan invited Wu to help with the searches. As of June 2 of the same year, they had accessed information from over 170 bank accounts.
In June 2023, Wang and Lin, through Yan, contacted Zuo, the deputy leader of the Criminal Investigation Brigade and head of the Intelligence Squadron of the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau, to check if the bank account information had been frozen or blocked, agreeing to pay 1,000 yuan for each search to Yan, who would split the reward with Zuo. Zuo then used the official digital certificate to log in to the national anti-fraud big data platform at the office computer of the Criminal Investigation Brigade to check a total of 13 pieces of bank account information sent by Wang, earning 6,500 yuan from Yan.
In addition, Zuo, after contacting Wang, froze a total of 27 bank accounts through the national anti-fraud big data platform.
The prosecutor accused Wang of transferring over 600,000 yuan to Li and Lin’s bank accounts and Alipay accounts through multiple channels, used for settlement, payment of search rewards, and related expenses. Under Lin’s instructions, Li delivered at least 130,000 yuan in cash to Yan in Shanggao County in multiple installments, which Yan distributed part of to Chen and a smaller portion to Wu. Lin paid Li 20,000 yuan for receiving and settling search rewards and related expenses. Wang also made illegal profits from this scheme.
In January 2026, the main culprit Wang was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment and fined 100,000 yuan. The judgment mentioned that Yan, Chen, Zuo, and Lin had been sentenced, while another accomplice, Lin, was handled in a separate case.
However, the judgment did not mention the specific sentencing of internal officials, nor did it address compensation issues for the victims or any losses incurred.
It was reported that in late March, Wang’s criminal judgment had been published on the Chinese judicial document website, but by May 11, when the report was released, the judgment could no longer be found.
The news has sparked discussions among mainland Chinese netizens on Weibo: “Haha, the anti-fraud platform is so ironic.” “Who is not a fraud, it’s just different roles, but all are scammers.” “Why are they so enthusiastic about promoting anti-fraud?” “Thieves calling out other thieves, guarding against self-theft.” “How many cases have not been discovered yet? I receive telemarketing calls every day, who is selling our personal information?”
This incident has also sparked discussions on overseas platform X:
“The government sentencing several police officers who sold citizens’ information to prison is scary, not only because government officials are abusing citizens’ information using the anti-fraud system, but also because the police can freeze accounts at will. The power of the police has expanded to an incredible extent. No wonder some people’s bank accounts are frozen, yet they cannot find the responsible person; it turns out that freezing bank accounts can be arbitrarily handled by ordinary police officers.”
“A country without investment security will not have financial investors dare to enter, let alone escape. “Isn’t remote fishing them?” a user mentioned.
A netizen reminded: “The best thing domestic media does is to first frame your understanding: under the circumstances that do not allow you to question the anti-fraud narrative, emphasize that a few bad people were exploited and punished. But the real question is why does the anti-fraud narrative stand? Why are there suddenly scams everywhere? When this group of national thieves has the power to freeze your bank account at their fingertips and control your money, the so-called anti-fraud is fundamentally about controlling the flow of funds.”
Another netizen said: “Catch a few grassroots underlings, give an explanation to the ignorant masses, and shift the focus to protect the upstream house.”
Since 2021, the Chinese Communist Party has been aggressively promoting the “National Anti-Fraud Center” app, with many netizens reporting being forced to download and install the app on their phones. For example, university students are required to install it, and residents must do so when applying for access cards or keys from the neighborhood committee. Police officers at railway stations forcefully demand travelers to install the anti-fraud software, otherwise, they are not allowed to leave.
In recent years, the authorities have also introduced several so-called “anti-fraud weapons,” yet online fraud continues to prevail. Previously, Epoch Times cited analysis reports from various experts suggesting that the Chinese Communist Party is using the anti-fraud guise to tighten control over domestic and international telecommunications, essentially blocking citizens’ access to free information and obstructing foreigners from understanding the real situation in China rather than sincerely addressing the issue of online fraud.
A joint report released two years ago by the Tibet research network “Turquoise Roof” and the human rights organization “Tibet Watch” pointed out that the anti-fraud app launched by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security can monitor users’ received messages, access call logs and internet browsing history, and even capture entered numbers (such as passwords) and take photos, collecting visual data of users and their surroundings.
Chinese people are becoming increasingly aware of the tricks employed by the Chinese Communist Party. On May 11, a netizen, in response to the report on Caixin, said: “A few days ago, when I went to the bank, the teller asked me to scan a QR code. I asked what QR code it was, but she refused to say, only stating that it was a necessary step for conducting transactions. I scanned the QR code, and a Police anti-fraud app popped up; I immediately said I wouldn’t download it and deleted it firmly. She threatened, saying the transaction might not go through. I replied that even if the transaction didn’t go through, I still wouldn’t download it. I went to another bank for the transaction, and it was completed, without downloading the app.”
An anonymous human rights lawyer in Changsha, Hunan, told Epoch Times that forcing the installation of anti-fraud software violates personal privacy and communication freedom. Citizens can apply for administrative review or file lawsuits according to the law. He urged the government to protect the basic rights of citizens, rather than implementing technical surveillance under the guise of anti-fraud.