Shenzhen Jiewor Jewelry Co., Ltd. (Jiewor) is facing difficulties in meeting its commitment to pay 500 yuan (RMB) per day to its customers. Reports suggest that Jiewor’s potential default may involve up to 13.3 billion yuan.
According to a report by “Storm Eye” under Phoenix Finance on January 28, a crowd of investors from all over the country has gathered outside Jiewor’s premises, all facing the same issue of withdrawal difficulties.
One investor, 30-year-old Lin Wei (pseudonym), revealed to the media that she had invested over five million yuan, including her parents’ retirement savings and 220,000 yuan borrowed from friends.
Another victim, Cai Lin (pseudonym), stated that she fell into the trap due to the extremely low entry threshold and enticing welfare policies promoted by the popular “Jiewor Gold Processing Fee-Free” event on Xiaohongshu. The heavy promotion on Xiaohongshu, coupled with Jiewor’s endorsement from the Shenzhen Water Bay International Jewelry Trading Center, completely dispelled her concerns. To this day, her investment of 185,000 yuan remains unfulfilled.
Investor Liu Fang (pseudonym) disclosed that abnormalities in Jiewor’s operations emerged around January 19. Since then, withdrawal limits suddenly dropped to 500 yuan per day, and her multiple withdrawal requests were repeatedly rejected by the platform. Almost simultaneously, her bank card was protectively frozen by the authorities.
The report stated that there is no official precise statistic on how many investors are affected by Jiewor’s potential default. A victim group, including Cai Lin, has over 2,000 members. Ms. Liu revealed to Beike Finance on January 27 that there were “43,422 people waiting for payment” when she tried to withdraw on that day.
On January 28, Yahoo News reported that the amount involved in Jiewor’s case reached 13.3 billion yuan.
According to a report by Xinjing Bao on January 28, Jiewor adopted two trading models of “invisible gold”: consumers could either buy gold in full on the company’s platform or order gold through a pricing trading method, where investors could pre-agree on a selling price with the platform. When the agreed time expires, regardless of market fluctuations, the transaction takes place at the agreed price.
In response, financial regulation expert Zhou Yiqin stated, “Such transactions clearly exhibit characteristics of derivatives.”
In October 2025, the Shenzhen Gold and Jewelry Industry Association issued a warning letter stating that some gold and jewelry companies were engaging in “non-physical gold gambling” activities through online platforms under the guise of gold operations, which may constitute the offense of operating gambling establishments.
Some consumers informed Beike Finance that Jiewor’s jewelry’s potential default is related to these types of transactions.
Deputy Director of Shaanxi Funeng Law Firm, Fu Peng, commented that three different legal classifications may apply to this case, depending on the platform’s actual operation mode, fund flow, and subjective intentions. If a genuine agreement exists between the platform and users for gold sales/reservation and there is actual gold reserve, but the platform fails to deliver gold or refund funds due to mismanagement, it falls under the category of civil breach. Consumers can demand fund refunds, gold delivery, or compensation for losses according to the Civil Code’s provisions on sales contracts and liability for breach. If the platform lacks gold financial trading qualifications, operates a trading model detached from physical delivery, it may involve the offense of illegal operation. If the platform’s gold trading is a facade for illegal possession, it could constitute the offense of fundraising fraud.
Netizen “Chunmingzailulang” suggested, “Under inadequate supervision, a high leverage gambling + fund pool model inevitably leads to defaults. It is recommended for consumers to collectively report and safeguard their rights.”
While “Zouguodongtiandeyu” argued, “The difficulty in withdrawing funds at Water Bay Jewelry Store exposes regulatory loopholes; high leverage gold trading should be strictly regulated.”