The anti-fraud platform that CCP authorities have forced the public to install on their phones has become an "ATM" for police officers. Recently, a scandal broke involving police officers in Jiangxi colluding with outsiders to sell personal information and arbitrarily freeze bank accounts, sparking heated discussion online.
Details Emerge of CCP Police Colluding with Outsiders to Sell Personal Information
Mainland outlet Caixin reported on May 11 that a verdict published on China Judgments Online shows that a Fujian man surnamed Wang (referred to here as Wang A) recruited several police officers in Shanggao County, Jiangxi, to illegally obtain and sell citizens' bank account information through the CCP's National Anti-Fraud Platform. They illegally queried more than 170 citizens' bank account records at a price of 1,000 yuan (RMB, same below) each, and placed payment holds on 27 accounts (blocking funds from being transferred out). Yan (surname only), then a senior official at the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau, personally pocketed at least 130,000 yuan, which he then split among several officers under him.
On April 27, 2023, Wang A, together with Lin A, Lin Yong, and others, traveled to Shanggao County, Jiangxi, and through Lin A and Lin Yong's prior acquaintance with Yan, a senior official at the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau, asked Yan to help query bank account freeze and payment-hold statuses through the national anti-fraud big-data platform.
After agreeing, Yan brought in Chen, then a deputy station chief, to discuss the arrangement. The two sides agreed that Wang A would send bank account information via the overseas messaging app Telegram, which Chen would then look up and report back to Wang A. Yan's side would receive at least 1,000 yuan for each query, and Lin Yong would receive 1,000 yuan per query as well.
On May 9, 2023, Chen used the police digital certificate belonging to Cao, an officer with the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau's Criminal Investigation Brigade, to log into the national anti-fraud big-data platform from an office computer and look up the bank account information Wang A had sent. Around May 17 of the same year, Yan brought in Wu A to help with the lookups. By June 2, they had queried more than 170 bank account records in total.
In June 2023, Wang A and Lin Yong, again through Yan, approached Zuo A, then deputy head of the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau's Criminal Investigation Brigade and head of its intelligence unit, to have him check on the national anti-fraud big-data platform whether certain bank accounts had been frozen or placed on payment hold. The two sides agreed on a fee of 1,000 yuan per query, to be paid to Yan and split evenly between Yan and Zuo A. Zuo A subsequently used a police digital certificate to log into the national anti-fraud big-data platform from an office computer at the Criminal Investigation Brigade, querying a total of 13 bank accounts sent by Wang A, and receiving 6,500 yuan from Yan.
In addition, after being contacted directly by Wang A, Zuo A placed payment holds on the bank accounts Wang A sent him through the national anti-fraud big-data platform, freezing a total of 27 bank accounts.
Prosecutors alleged that Wang A transferred more than 600,000 yuan in total to the WeChat, Alipay, or bank accounts of Li (surname only) and Lin Yong, through multiple WeChat, Alipay, or bank card accounts, to settle and pay for the queries and related expenses. On Lin Yong's instructions, Li made multiple cash payments in Shanggao County totaling at least 130,000 yuan to Yan, who in turn gave 30,000 yuan in cash to Chen and 2,000 yuan in cash to Wu A. In collecting and settling the query fees and related expenses, Lin Yong paid Li 20,000 yuan, with the remainder used for expenses or kept as his own payment. Wang A also profited illegally from the scheme.
In January 2026, the ringleader, Wang A, was sentenced to three years and three months in prison and fined 100,000 yuan. The verdict noted that Yan (the then-senior official at the Shanggao County Public Security Bureau), Chen (the then-deputy station chief), Zuo A (the then-deputy head of the Criminal Investigation Brigade and head of its intelligence unit), and Wang A's accomplice Lin Yong had all already been sentenced, while another accomplice, Lin A, was being handled in a separate case.
However, the verdict did not disclose the specific sentences handed down to the police officers and other public officials involved, nor did it address compensation for victims or any losses they suffered.
Incident Sparks Heated Online Debate
According to the report, Wang A's criminal verdict was published on China Judgments Online in late March, but by the time of publication on May 11, the verdict could no longer be found on the site.
The report also noted that in recent years, cases of personnel within the CCP's public security system illegally querying citizens' information through the national anti-fraud platform have occurred repeatedly, with some of the information ending up in fraud schemes. For example, Yang Jie, an auxiliary police officer in Daxian County, Sichuan, used other officers' digital certificates without authorization while on duty to illegally query more than 5,000 bank account records on the national anti-fraud big-data platform on behalf of online gambling platform operators; he was later sentenced to one year and three months in prison and fined 25,000 yuan.
The news sparked heated discussion among mainland internet users on Weibo: "Ha, the anti-fraud platform is such an irony." "A scam is a scam no matter who's doing it — they're all con artists either way." "No wonder they're so eager to promote anti-fraud awareness." "The thief cries 'stop thief' — the watchman robbing the house he's guarding." "How many more haven't been caught? I get sales calls every day — who's selling our personal information?"
The incident also sparked heated discussion on the overseas platform X:
"The authorities sentenced a few police officers who sold citizens' information to prison — but what's truly terrifying isn't just that officials abused the anti-fraud system to misuse citizens' data, it's that police can freeze accounts at will; police power has expanded to an almost unimaginable degree. No wonder some people's bank accounts get frozen with no one able to find who's responsible — it turns out an ordinary police officer can freeze a bank account on a whim."
"A country with no safety for investors will never attract financial investors willing to come in — they'd be too busy trying to flee." "It's not just formal police officers — even neighborhood grid workers can look at your personal information whenever they want, let alone sell it." "Isn't 'deep-sea fishing' exactly what this is?"
One internet user warned: "What domestic media is best at is framing your perception from the start: emphasizing that a few bad apples exploited the system and were severely punished, all while making sure you never question the anti-fraud narrative itself. But the real question that should be asked is: on what basis does the anti-fraud narrative even stand? Why did scammers suddenly appear everywhere? When this gang of power-usurping thieves running the CCP can freeze your bank account and choke off your money with a flick of the wrist, the so-called "anti-fraud" campaign is, in essence, about controlling the flow of money."
Another internet user said: "They caught a few small fry at the bottom to give the ignorant 'leeks' [ordinary people being exploited] an explanation, diverting attention to protect the real operators higher up."
CCP's Forced Anti-Fraud App Exposed as Surveillance Tool
Since 2021, the CCP has aggressively pushed its "National Anti-Fraud Center" app, with internet users in many regions reporting they were forced to download and install it on their phones. College students, for instance, have been required to install it; residents applying for access cards at neighborhood committees have likewise been told they must install it before their request can be processed; and police at train stations have forced travelers to install the anti-fraud app before allowing them to exit the station.
In recent years, authorities have also rolled out several so-called "powerful anti-fraud tools," yet telecom and online fraud remains rampant. The Epoch Times has previously cited analysis from multiple sources at home and abroad noting that the CCP's real purpose in intensifying its blocking of domestic and international communications in the name of "anti-fraud" is to cut citizens off from free information and prevent people outside China from learning the true situation inside the country — not to genuinely solve the problem of telecom fraud.
Two years ago, the Tibet research network Turquoise Roof and the human rights organization Tibet Watch jointly published an investigative report finding that the anti-fraud app rolled out by the CCP's Ministry of Public Security can monitor text messages received by users, access call records and internet browsing history, capture numbers users type in (such as passwords), and even take photos, collecting visual data about users and their surroundings.
Chinese citizens are also becoming increasingly aware of the CCP's tactics. On May 11, one internet user commented under the Caixin report: "A few days ago I went to the bank to handle some business, and the teller asked me to scan a QR code. When I asked what it was for, she wouldn't say, just that it was a required step for the transaction. I scanned it, and it brought up the police anti-fraud app. I immediately said I wouldn't download it, and firmly deleted it. She threatened that the transaction might not go through. I told her, fine, I still won't download it — I'll go to another bank. In the end, I got the transaction done anyway, without ever installing the app."
An unnamed human rights lawyer in Changsha, Hunan, told The Epoch Times that forcing people to install anti-fraud software violates their right to privacy and freedom of communication, and that citizens have the legal right to seek administrative reconsideration or file a lawsuit. He called on the government to protect citizens' basic rights, rather than using the pretext of anti-fraud measures to impose technological surveillance.