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 via SF Express with “full value insurance”. However, upon delivery to the designated locations, SF Express marked both shipments as “received on behalf” to conclude the logistics service, while the two recipients claimed they had not received the gold.
Consumer Claims to Have Photographed Gold 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 personally, resulting in the loss of the goods. Therefore, SF Express should fully compensate for the loss.
In response, SF Express personnel stated that Mr. Song’s two shipments 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 Xiangqin” mini-program. 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, costing a total of 227,770 yuan.
After purchasing the gold, Mr. Song followed the instructions of the “Shanghai Gold Trading Platform” and used the designated SF Express to ship the gold 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 any deposit beforehand. For safety, 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 shipments had been marked as “received on behalf” to conclude the logistics service.
Since then, Mr. Song has communicated with SF Express multiple times, hoping for compensation for his loss, but the staff stated that 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 person who signed on behalf. 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 responded that the consumer’s shipment was currently in the process of claims settlement. 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 to arrange a delivery time to ensure that the goods were signed for by the recipients themselves. If the recipient agreed to “have someone sign on behalf”, they could contact the courier beforehand to help verify the identity information of the person signing on behalf. The platform did not have an obligation to conduct real-name authentication for the person signing on behalf.
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 since he noticed the package was a valuable item, he contacted the recipient listed on the order before delivery. “I obtained the verification code for package receipt from the recipient, confirmed the recipient’s information, and then completed the process of having someone sign on behalf by placing the package in the centralized SF Express package area.”
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 listed on 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 shipments, Mr. Song had contacted the two recipients multiple times, but their phones were turned off after they said they had not received the goods.
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 yet.”
Regarding this, Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner and well-known public interest lawyer at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, believed that the responsibility of the courier company for lost packages received on behalf should be determined based on the actual situation. “In this incident, whether the courier company is responsible depends on whether they have obtained the consent of the recipient. If the recipient has agreed to have someone else sign on behalf, the courier company is not responsible.”
“Currently, the loss of the packages is a fact. Both parties have not mentioned the detail of the recipient agreeing to have someone sign on behalf, and 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 amount,” Zhao Liangshan said. 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 evaluation.
It is worth noting that recently, new types of scams involving shipping 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 + shipping gold for “cash withdrawal”, false investment and financial management + shipping gold for “recharging”, impersonating public security, procuratorates, and courts + shipping 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 or deposits”, “invest and purchase shares”, etc. While committing the scam, they would also “launder” the scam funds.
“Based on common scam tactics, the scammers have transformed the online transfer process into inducing victims to send large amounts of cash or gold through couriers or ride-hailing services to designated locations to obtain money. Without meeting face-to-face, the scammers can successfully obtain cash or gold for fund transfers. Compared to online transfers, this method is more concealed and deceptive,” the report said.