In March 2021, I took on a case involving a scam by a courier company. With a trial set for February, I’m sharing this story to highlight the prevalence of such frauds and to help you steer clear of similar pitfalls.Mohammad, a Pakistani entrepreneur with a trading business in Shenzhen, purchased 100 iPhone X units from the HuaQiangBei Electronics Centre to sell in Belgium. In December 2020, he contracted a local courier service for 6,594 RMB to ship the phones.
Subsequently, Mohammad received no further communication from the courier company—a complete silence ensued. It became apparent that the shipment had never been dispatched. When Mohammad inquired for an explanation, the company offered unfounded excuses, claiming the absence of a direct flight to Belgium, an alleged customs seizure of the phones, and
assurances that the goods were in transit.
As the Chinese New Year came and went without any progress, Mohammad sensed that something was amiss. With urgency, he traveled from Hong Kong to China. Though based in Hong Kong for work, he manages a small team in China for local operations.
In late March, a mutual friend provided Mohammad with my contact details. Initially, Mohammad summoned the courier who had collected the package to discuss the matter at his office, with me facilitating the dialogue.
However, the effort was futile. The conversation was brief, lasting only a minute, as the courier was intimidated and refused to offer any compensation.
The following day, I accompanied Mohammad to the police station to initiate a criminal complaint. It was clear to us that the courier had purloined the package.
Below is the police report we received for the case.
The police were cooperative, as I was able to clearly articulate the case to them using legal terminology. They dispatched a team to the courier’s workplace, apprehended him, and brought him to the station for interrogation.
They recorded statements from my client and the employee responsible for managing the shipment. Once their initial inquiries were complete, the police advised us to return home as they intended to conduct further questioning with the suspected fraudster throughout the night.
Upon our return to the station the next day, the police informed us that the individual in custody was not the actual thief. He was, in fact, a middleman. This courier, whom I’ll refer to as ‘A’, had unlawfully passed on the responsibility of shipping the phones to another party, ‘B’, without the consent of my client.
‘A’ had given ‘B’ approximately 3,000 RMB to handle the shipping, keeping an equal amount as his fee for acting as the intermediary.
The police then accompanied us to a different police station, where ‘B’s office was located. Upon arrival, ‘B’ was taken in for preliminary questioning. Initially, ‘B’ claimed to the authorities that the shipment had been confiscated by customs. However, she later changed her story, alleging that she had handed over the shipment to another logistics entity, referred to as ‘C’, for delivery. The police decided to detain her for an overnight interrogation to ascertain the truth.
In conclusion, ‘B’ confessed to fabricating the story about the customs seizure and acknowledged that the goods had been lost. She also conceded that the so-called logistics company ‘C’ was entirely fictitious.
Equipped with the police report as evidence, we are now in a strong position to initiate legal action against both ‘A’ and ‘B’ on the grounds of tort liability. ‘A’ had violated the terms of the original logistics contract by unauthorized delegation of the shipping responsibility, which constitutes a breach of contract. Following ‘A’s initial detention by the police, he immediately refunded the transportation costs to my client.
The verdict is as follows:
The court ruled that the shipping company had to pay for the full cost of the iPhones, which was 240,030 RMB, court fees of 4,953 RMB and preservation fees of 1740. Preservation fees means that the fees a court accepts for freezing of bank accounts.