Ms. Zhang, a citizen of Shanghai, issued a dog search message in the Twitter community, which resulted in the dog not being found, but in the recruitment of a fraudster, to whom approximately $29,000 was transferred. The men involved were previously prosecuted by the Shanghai Baoshan Public Prosecutor ' s Office for fraud.
He said he could check the cameras. He asked for $7,000 for a dog.
On 17 January 2016, Ms. Zhang was in conflict with her husband, who took one of her hairy dogs and abandoned them. Ms. Zhang was anxious to find a dog, and on the same day she posted information on the search for a dog in a pet community. After the message was sent, Ms. Zhang was approached by a person named “Doo” and added as a close friend. Ms. Zhang's dog-loved mentality is used to create a fraud.
Todo claims that he has a brother who is a police officer and who has access to surveillance and dogs, but pays the police $7,000 for labour. Ms. Zhang sought the heart of the dog and immediately agreed to transfer the “labour money” to “more”. When the money was received, it was “too much” to ask for Ms. Zhang's husband's license plate and model and to check the surveillance.
On the same day, Ms. Zhang was called by “Todo” who said that he had been shown surveillance, which had seen his husband's car but no dog. On the night of 19 January, Dodo called Ms. Zhang to say that her husband drove the car to Podong Hoking Town and the dog disappeared nearby. On 20 January, Ms. Zhang was called again by “Todo” and asked to meet him at a convenience store on West Road, where she gave Ms. Zhang the last address of the dog. Ms. Zhang was on her way to find the dog according to her address that day, but there was still no clue for a day.
I can't find a dog for the money. It's a fraud.
So Ms. Zhang called for “too much”. At this time, the time has come for another “more” attempt, and to Ms. Zhang, the dog has gone to another location to pay $17,000 if it continues to call for surveillance. This is a large amount, but Ms. Chang is willing to find a dog. Moreover, through one encounter, Ms. Zhang's trust was gradually gained by “more”, and Ms. Zhang transferred $17,000 by paying for the treasure. Subsequently, the “Too-Too” had claimed that he had seen the dog, but had been captured by local dog beaters, who had been caught in a car that was uncharted, and had been advised not to look for it, and had to pay for it.
On 23 January, Ms. Zhang returned to Hangzhou to take care of her mother, and although the prospect of finding a dog was diminishing at that time, Ms. Zhang was still concerned. At that point, the Internet friend “Todo” offered to go to Pudong to find the dog and to print the leaflets. Ms. Zhang was too upset and moved by his enthusiasm and took the initiative to transfer $5,000 to his account by microletter. After that, Ms. Zhang began to realize that she had been deceived and eventually reported the case. It was later discovered that the “hot” Internet friend, “Toto”, had the real name, according to Mao’s confession, that he had never helped Ms. Chang to find a dog and that he had spent all her money on eating and drinking.
After examination, the Public Prosecutor ' s Office found that the accused ' s Maoist administration, with the aim of illegal possession, had used the use of false facts to extort money from a large number of persons and had acted in violation of article 266 of the Criminal Code of the People ' s Republic of China, that the facts of the crime were clear and that the evidence was sufficient and that he should be held criminally responsible for fraud. (The characters are aliases)