In the process of combating cross-border telecom fraud, more and more people have raised a thought-provoking question: Why are those who are lured or kidnapped to Northern Myanmar referred to as "fraud-involved personnel"? Are they really victims, or have they become perpetrators of crime? How should their criminal responsibility be defined legally?
Let's briefly review the achievements in the fight against telecom fraud over the past month.
On February 20th, the first batch of 200 Chinese suspects involved in fraud from Myawaddy, Myanmar, were successively extradited back to the country! Moreover, in the coming period, Myanmar will continue to transfer about 7,000 telecom fraud park personnel to Thailand.
On March 7th, our country officially announced: The telecom fraud parks near the border in Northern Myanmar have been completely cleared, and China, Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos are jointly intensifying their crackdown on telecom fraud in the Thai-Myanmar border area.
The first batch of 200 Chinese suspects from Myawaddy, Myanmar, has been successively sent back to the country. As the joint crackdown by China, Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos gradually intensifies, the telecom fraud parks in Northern Myanmar have almost been cleared. However, as the operation deepens, whether the "fraud-involved personnel" are victims or criminals has become an urgent question to answer.
A careful analysis reveals that most people in the telecom fraud parks in Northern Myanmar did not participate voluntarily. 95% of them were actually lured there by "high salaries" or went there out of various predicaments—such as debt or gambling—hoping to try their luck and find opportunities. However, once there, two situations arose:
The first situation: "Piglets" who did not make any deals and were powerless to return to their country
For these "piglets" who are of no value, they become a "burden" or "loss" for the park! Different parks handle this situation differently, some might demand money from the person's family, treating it as "accommodation fees," meaning if your child comes here, eats and drinks, and doesn't settle the bill, they can't leave, and the amount is negotiable. They might start by asking for 500,000, and if you don't pay, you get electrocuted. If you can prove that your family really can't afford that much, then the price can be negotiated.
At this point, there's a miraculous profession, such as the famous "Dragon Brother," who was the behind-the-scenes advisor for the anti-fraud film "Desperate Rescue." He has connections there and can mediate. For example, Dragon Brother makes it clear to the park that this kid is very poor, can only pay 50,000 at most, and once the park sees that's the limit, 50,000 is better than nothing, and the matter is settled. Dragon Brother then arranges transportation to pick up the person.
From the perspective of rescuing personnel, they indeed have merits. Without them, many families would suffer. Their workflow involves paying a fee to the Karen armed forces as a "mediation license." After paying this fee, they can enter and exit the Karen-controlled parks without being troubled.
These intermediaries, by showing the dilapidated houses of the families or other information, convince the parks that the families really have no money. Once the parks confirm they can't squeeze more out, they give up and settle for whatever can be paid.
The second situation: More often, the second scenario occurs, where they "successfully make a deal," participate in fraud, and become perpetrators
First, let's exclude those shameless individuals who voluntarily go to Northern Myanmar to engage in fraud. For these people, there is no doubt that they are heinous criminals. Here, we only discuss those who are forced into fraud.
Compared to those who can't make a deal, more people "successfully make a deal." The so-called "successful deal" means they have successfully carried out fraud and deceived others out of their money.
This behavior, undoubtedly, constitutes a criminal offense. Even though they were also deceived and kidnapped to the park, lost their freedom, and were subjected to various tortures and coercion to participate in fraud, from a legal perspective, they have become perpetrators of telecom fraud. Therefore, when they are "rescued" from the park, they are generally handcuffed and await legal sanctions, whether it be detention or sentencing.
However, we must not overlook that most of these people were initially victims of the Southeast Asian crime chain. They harbored hopes for a better life but unfortunately fell into the trap of criminals, lost their freedom, and suffered inhumane treatment in the parks, being forced into fraudulent activities.
This raises a thought-provoking question: Are these people guilty? Legally speaking, they committed fraud and violated the law, and thus should be punished.
According to our current laws, there are clear sentencing standards for fraud: According to our current laws, once the amount of fraud reaches a certain threshold, it constitutes a criminal offense. The current standard is that amounts starting from 3,000 yuan constitute a criminal offense, and amounts over 500,000 yuan are considered "especially huge," with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment or even the death penalty.
However, the issue is: When these people commit fraud under a state of complete lack of freedom, should they be judged according to traditional legal standards? For example, if a person is coerced into defrauding 50,000 yuan, does it constitute a crime? How do we assess whether these people are "victims"?
The reality is that "brainwashing" and "threats" are common in the telecom fraud parks of Northern Myanmar, making it difficult to present complete evidence. Surveillance equipment in the fraud parks is often destroyed, and witnesses are afraid to testify, resulting in a severe lack of evidence in cases. As a result, those who are repatriated tend to claim they are innocent, so you'll find that 95% of the fraud-involved personnel are "innocent"!
In summary, the complexity of the telecom fraud issue is self-evident, involving legal, moral, and human nature aspects. Although most of the people "rescued" from the parks are victims, once they participate in fraudulent activities, they become perpetrators. How to handle these complex cases legally, balancing their status as victims with their criminal actions, will be a major challenge for the judicial authorities.
