"I only opened an e-commerce store in March. This is the largest e-commerce order, and it is the first time I have only received a refund." On May 22, Ms. Yang from Handan, Hebei told a cover news reporter about her rights protection journey in the past month. Ms. Yang runs a photovoltaic bracket production factory in Hebei. She joined the e-commerce platform in March this year and completed an order of 23,600 yuan on April 24. However, two days after receiving the goods, the Shanghai buyer applied for a full refund on the grounds that the goods had not been received. Because Ms. Yang did not process it in time, the system automatically refunded the money.
"On the 21st, the buyer returned the payment to me, but the matter is not over yet." Ms. Yang said that she will wait for the final results of the police investigation and will recover the corresponding losses through legal channels. She also hopes that the e-commerce platform will improve its rules and protect the rights and interests of small and medium-sized businesses.
"Refund only" after receipt of 2,500 photovoltaic water tanks
In recent days, the incident of “refund only” for 23,600 photovoltaic accessories sold by an e-commerce seller in Handan, Hebei has attracted much attention. On May 22, Ms. Yang, the seller involved, introduced the latest progress of this refund-only incident to the cover news reporter: "The buyer Zhang took the initiative to contact me and refund the full payment."
Ms. Yang introduced that on March 11 this year, she and her husband opened a factory e-commerce store on Alibaba’s 1688 platform, mainly selling photovoltaic bracket accessories. On April 24, a company in Shanghai placed an order for a batch of photovoltaic aluminum alloy sinks and accessories. The backend order shows that the order is for 2,500 sink accessories, with a unit price of 9.44 yuan and a total price of 23,600 yuan.
"This Shanghai buyer made a note request: mark the name of another company on the outer packaging, and then ship it to Ningxia for receipt." Ms. Yang said that this is the factory's largest order this year, and she takes it very seriously and will do everything as ordered. On April 27, this batch of goods was delivered to Ningxia as required and was inspected and delivered on the spot.
However, after receiving the goods, the buyer first applied for a refund of 3,000 yuan on the grounds of "missing corner code"; on April 29, he applied for a "full refund only" on the grounds of "not receiving the goods". As a newbie to the platform, Ms. Yang was not familiar with the rules and did not notice it in time. By the time Ms. Yang found out, the platform had automatically refunded the money, and all 23,600 yuan was returned to the buyer's account.
The background shows that the order was refunded successfully. screenshot
Ms. Yang contacted the platform, and the platform responded: "The buyer's account cannot be frozen. It is recommended to protect rights offline, call the police or go through judicial procedures."
After contacting the buyer several times to no avail, on May 17, Ms. Yang, her husband Mr. Niu, their two-year-old child, the business manager and a group of four people went from Handan, Hebei to Baoshan, Shanghai, where they found Zhang, the buyer who placed the order.
Ms. Yang's family took their children from Hebei to Shanghai to seek explanation. Video screenshot
The seller safeguarded his rights across provinces and recovered the payment of 23,600 yuan
"At first he did not admit receiving the goods." Ms. Yang said that after negotiating with the buyer, the other party denied the fact of receiving the goods and refused to communicate and respond.
After finding a buyer in Shanghai, the buyer refused to admit it. Video screenshot
In desperation, Ms. Yang contacted the actual recipient of the goods in Ningxia for verification and verified the key information. "We contacted the Ningxia consignee and found out that the Shanghai buyer was a middleman and resold my goods to the Ningxia buyer. The goods have been installed."
After confirming that the goods had been put into use and could not be recovered, Ms. Yang could only try her best to recover the payment, but the buyer refused to cooperate and the two parties reached a stalemate.
"Later I learned that there was an e-commerce merchant mutual aid association. After asking for help, the rights protection volunteers helped organize the materials and accompanied them to the economic investigation department to report the case." A "Case Filing Receipt" issued by Ms. Yang showed that on May 19, Ms. Yang's husband, Mr. Niu, reported the case to the Shanghai Baoshan Branch, and the police accepted the contract fraud case.
The "Acceptance Receipt" presented by Ms. Yang. Video screenshot
On her personal social platform, Ms. Yang simultaneously recorded this rights protection journey in video form, which attracted a lot of attention. It was not until May 21 that the buyer proactively contacted Ms. Yang for a refund.
The transaction records provided by Ms. Yang show that at 13:40 noon on May 21, she received the full payment of 23,600 yuan through the QR code.
At noon on May 21, Ms. Yang received the payment returned from the buyer. Screenshot of social public video
"Although the payment was recovered, this rights protection was only half successful." Ms. Yang said that this cross-provincial rights protection incurred thousands of yuan in expenses such as transportation and accommodation, and a huge loss of energy.
"We will wait for the final results of the police investigation, and will pursue lost work expenses, travel expenses and mental losses through legal channels. We also hope that the platform will improve its rules and protect the rights and interests of small and medium-sized businesses." Ms. Yang said.
Don’t treat platform vulnerabilities as benefits
Lawyer reminds: Malicious refunds may involve criminal offenses
From the 180-yuan durian case in Shandong half a month ago to the 23,600-yuan photovoltaic accessories case this time, such buyers' "only refund" incidents have attracted much attention. In this regard, the interviewed lawyer told Cover News, "This behavior has exceeded the scope of ordinary civil disputes and is suspected of criminal offenses."
Lawyer Zhao Liangshan, senior partner of Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, analyzed that after the Shanghai buyer signed for 23,600 yuan of photovoltaic accessories, resold them to a third party and put them into use, he fabricated the fact that the goods had not been received and defrauded a full refund. This constituted a breach of contract, civil fraud and unjust enrichment, and required a full refund of the purchase price.
He believes that "the amount involved far exceeds the standard for filing a fraud case. The buyer defrauded the payment for the purpose of illegal possession and is suspected of fraud. Even if criminal liability is not pursued, he can still be held accountable for public security violations according to law."
"The chain of evidence in this case is complete. Reasonable expenses such as transportation, food and accommodation, and lost work time incurred by merchants in cross-provincial rights protection can be recovered from malicious buyers in accordance with the law." Regarding the subsequent rights protection of merchants, lawyer Fu Jian analyzed, "In the actual process, intangible losses such as goodwill and time are difficult to quantify and prove, and it is difficult to obtain compensation. There is also an enforcement risk of buyers concealing property and refusing to enforce judgments."
In the successive "refund only" incidents, the responsibility of e-commerce platforms has also attracted public attention. Lawyer Zhao Liangshan pointed out that the platform should assume the central responsibility for supervision. "The merchant holds complete delivery and receipt vouchers, and the platform automatically refunds the money without substantial review. It fails to fulfill its prudent supervision obligations. It needs to bear supplementary responsibilities, cooperate with the merchant to recover money, and provide the buyer's real-name information."
The two lawyers reminded that malicious refunds for wool harvesting are by no means legal rights protection. At the least, they will bear civil compensation, and at worst, they will leave illegal and criminal records and affect personal credit. It is recommended that e-commerce merchants retain complete transaction evidence, and when encountering malicious infringement, defend their rights through platform complaints, alarms, and litigation to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.