Recently, Mr. Song, a consumer, reported to The Paper’s public interaction platform “Service Pai” (https://tousu.thepaper.cn) that he had shipped two packages of gold, totaling 370 grams and worth over 200,000 yuan, to Guangxi and Sichuan respectively through SF Express with “full value insurance”. However, upon arrival at the designated locations, SF Express completed the delivery service in the form of “proxy signature” for both packages, while the two recipients claimed they had not received the gold.
Consumer Claims to Have Photographed Gold as Evidence Before Shipping
Mr. Song believes that SF Express, knowing the shipped items were gold and fully insured, failed to notify the recipients to sign for the packages themselves, resulting in the loss of the goods. Therefore, SF Express should fully compensate for the loss.
In response, SF Express personnel stated that the logistics for Mr. Song’s two packages were normal and the operations complied with regulations. Due to the large amount of money involved in the lost packages, they advised Mr. Song to report to the police as soon as possible.
Consumer Complaint:
Mr. Song introduced that on September 19th of this year, he met a woman through the “Chengjia Matchmaking” applet. They communicated through voice and text messages. During their interactions, the woman said that after purchasing gold offline, she could find a contact person through the so-called “Shanghai Gold Trading Platform” website to ship the gold to a designated location. Once the recipient signed for it, the sender could earn money.
The woman also “demonstrated” the process and sent screenshots of profit messages to Mr. Song, which made him believe it without doubt. Subsequently, he took a loan of 200,000 yuan and added his own savings to purchase 370 grams of gold at a China Jewelry offline store on September 28th, totaling 227,770 yuan.
After purchasing the gold, Mr. Song followed the instructions of the “Shanghai Gold Trading Platform” and shipped the gold through the designated SF Express to the two designated contacts, with 50 grams of gold sent to Unit 1, Building 2, Area C, Fenghuangcheng, Dazhu County, Dazhou, Sichuan, and the remaining 320 grams sent to Shop 2103, Building 2, Caiyuan Road, Xiangsihu Campus, Finance and Economics College, Xixiangtang District, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.
Mr. Song said he did not know the two recipients in Sichuan and Guangxi, and they had not paid him a deposit beforehand. For safety reasons, when SF Express collected the gold on September 29th, he spread the gold out in front of the courier, took photos as evidence, and sent the packages with full value insurance.
Consumer Ships Two Packages of Gold to Dazhou, Sichuan and Nanning, Guangxi via SF Express
Consumer Ships Two Packages of Gold to Dazhou, Sichuan and Nanning, Guangxi via SF Express
The shipping order screenshots provided by Mr. Song showed that he paid 228 yuan and 1,020 yuan for the two packages respectively. The two packages were delivered to Dazhou, Sichuan at 17:34 on September 29th and to Nanning, Guangxi at 9:36 on September 30th.
Afterwards, Mr. Song contacted the two recipients by phone, and both said they had not received the packages, speculating that the items were lost. He quickly checked the shipping orders but found that both packages had ended their delivery service in the form of “proxy signature”.
Since then, Mr. Song has communicated with SF Express multiple times, hoping for compensation for his losses, but the staff said the logistics delivery was normal and refused to compensate.
“SF Express did not give special treatment to the fully insured gold packages, nor did they verify the identity information of the proxy signer. This is definitely their negligence. I hope SF Express can take responsibility,” Mr. Song said.
Company Response:
After receiving Mr. Song’s complaint, The Paper contacted SF Express, and they said that the consumer’s package was currently in the compensation process. The logistics progress showed that the delivery was compliant and normal, so they could not compensate the consumer according to the “full value insurance”. Additionally, when delivering valuable items, SF Express couriers would contact the recipients and communicate a delivery time to ensure that the goods were signed for by the recipients themselves. If the recipients themselves allowed “proxy signature”, they could contact the courier in advance to help verify the identity information of the proxy signer. The platform had no obligation to verify the real name of the proxy signer.
Consumer Claims to Have Purchased Full Value Insurance When Shipping Gold
The Paper subsequently contacted the two SF Express couriers. The courier who delivered the package to Dazhou, Sichuan said that he noticed the package was a valuable item, so he contacted the signer on the order before delivery. “I obtained the verification code for package delivery from the signer, and after confirming the signer’s information, I completed the proxy signature process for the order and placed the package in the centralized area for SF Express packages.”
The courier who delivered the package to Nanning, Guangxi said that he was not allowed to accept interviews without the company’s permission.
Furthermore, after receiving Mr. Song’s complaint, the two couriers helped call the recipients in the orders multiple times, but their phones were continuously turned off. “We suggest that Mr. Song report to the police promptly.”
The Paper learned that after discovering the lost packages, Mr. Song contacted the two recipients multiple times, but after informing him that they had not received the goods, their phones were turned off.
Currently, Mr. Song has reported this matter to the police. The case acceptance receipt he provided showed that the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau had accepted the case on October 1st. Mr. Song said, “The police said I might have encountered an online scam. The case is still under investigation, and there is no substantive progress at the moment.”
Regarding this, Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner and well-known public interest lawyer at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, believes that the responsibility of the courier company for lost proxy-signed packages should be determined based on the actual situation. “In this incident, whether the courier company is responsible depends on whether they obtained the consent of the recipient themselves. If the recipient themselves agreed to have someone else sign for it, then the courier company is not responsible.”
“Currently, it is a fact that the packages are lost, and neither party has mentioned the detail of the recipient agreeing to the proxy signature. Moreover, Mr. Song had insured the packages beforehand. The courier company needs to compensate for the lost or damaged packages according to the insurance rules. If they are completely destroyed or lost, compensation will be based on the insured amount; if partially damaged, compensation will be based on a proportional basis,” said Zhao Liangshan. If this case is later confirmed as an online scam, the courier company should first compensate Mr. Song and then seek compensation from the scammers. If both parties have disputes over the value of the items, they can determine it based on market value or third-party assessments.
It is worth noting that recently, new types of scams involving mailing gold have been reported in Heilongjiang, Chengdu, and Hangzhou. According to a report by Legal Daily, such scams utilize couriers and ride-hailing services to transport cash and gold to implement “online scams + offline money collection”. The main types of scams include brush order rebates + mailing gold for “cash out”, false investment and financing + mailing gold for “recharge”, impersonating public security, procuratorate, and court officials + mailing gold to “prove innocence”, etc.
The aforementioned report by Legal Daily stated that after gaining the trust of the victims, the scammers would induce them to send large amounts of cash or gold through couriers or ride-hailing services to designated locations under the pretext of needing to “pay handling fees”, “pay unfreezing fees and deposits”, “invest and become a shareholder”, etc., while also “laundering” the scam funds.
“Based on common scam tactics, scammers induce victims to send large amounts of cash or gold through couriers or ride-hailing services to designated locations instead of transferring money online to deceive them of their money. Scammers can successfully obtain cash or gold without meeting or appearing in person, thereby transferring funds. Compared to online transfers, this method is more concealed and deceptive,” the report said.