4 days ago
Shupai Yigou Collapse: A Ponzi Scam That Exposed China's Deeper Fault Lines
Shupai Yigou was not just a Ponzi scheme—it was a system-wide failure, where greed, blind trust, and lax oversight created the perfect storm.
Commentary
Shupai Yigou Digital Store, a Chinese digital investment platform, collapsed suddenly late last month, leaving
hundreds of thousands of people
across the country reeling.
Based in Linyi, in China's eastern Shandong Province, Shupai Yigou
marketed itself
as an innovative blend of e-commerce and investing, but was ultimately revealed to be a massive Ponzi scheme, defrauding users out of over
RMB60 billion
($8 billion).
Story continues below advertisement
What followed was a wave of chaos—mass protests, police crackdowns, and online censorship. But beyond the immediate financial disaster, the scandal exposed something far more serious: a crisis of trust, regulatory failure, and widespread public anxiety over financial security. A Simple but Devastating Scam
Shupai Yigou lured users with a too-good-to-be-true promise: daily returns of up to
3.5 percent
, and annual yields as high as 365 percent. Anyone could join with as little as RMB
1,000
($140) , and early users did see small payouts—just enough to create the illusion that the system worked. But in reality, those returns were simply paid out using new users' money, making it a classic Ponzi scheme.
To mask the fraud, Shupai Yigou disguised itself as a legitimate e-commerce platform, offering 'cashback' for shopping and displaying high-priced goods like luxury quilts or overpriced eggs—
30 for over RMB580
(nearly $80). But most of these goods were either fake, severely inflated in price, or simply never delivered. In the final days, users were forced to convert 90 percent of their 'balances' into these overpriced items—a last-ditch move to drain every cent before vanishing. Government Backing—or the Illusion of It
What gave Shupai Yigou legitimacy in the eyes of the public wasn't just the slick app or fake products—it was the apparent endorsement from government institutions.
In 2024, the Chinese communist regime's mouthpiece
CCTV
aired a glowing interview with company executives on its financial channel, portraying them as epitomes of the small-to-medium sized digital businesses. For many viewers, CCTV's coverage signaled state approval, and few questioned its credibility. But after the collapse, the network was accused of misleading the public and failing to do any real investigation.
Local governments also played a part. The Luozhuang District government in Linyi designated Shupai Yigou as a '
key project
' in 2024, offering land rights, tax breaks, and even partnering with local universities.
Wang Shaoqing
, the founder of the company, was praised as an 'outstanding Party member of Linyi City' and was a deputy to the 17th Linyi Municipal People's Congress, among other official titles. The company claimed
government ownership of 34 percent
—though this was never officially confirmed by the government from public sources. What mattered is that many users believed it, and that belief lowered their defenses.
In April 2025—just three months before the collapse—an
official document
from Linyi authorities, including the local district CCP committee, government, and police, stated that there was 'no evidence of the company being involved in illegal fundraising or pyramid schemes.' This statement, posted recently on X, gave investors a false sense of security. The Collapse and the Silence That Followed
By July 2025,
complaints
about withdrawal issues were piling up online. Users couldn't access their funds, but the app kept accepting new deposits. On July 21, the company finally
admitted
it was under investigation for suspected pyramid activity. It
claimed
that the large volume of simultaneous withdrawals and limits on bank transfer transactions were the main reasons for delays of users receiving funds.
Story continues below advertisement
That same day,
a large crowd
of investors
hurried to the company's headquarters, demanding their money back. But the offices were already abandoned. The next day,
police
moved in, using
pepper spray and making arrests
. Videos of the clashes were quickly deleted, and online discussion was censored. Some protesters—elderly, pregnant, or deeply in debt—broke down in tears. The tragedy was both physical and psychological.
Many victims
petitioned
local and provincial governments, only to be turned away or ignored. Some were reportedly
detained
. The Real Problem: A Crisis of Trust and Economic Desperation
At its core, Shupai Yigou wasn't just a financial scam. It was a reflection of deeper systemic issues in China today.
Public trust was weaponized: Older users, with limited financial knowledge and heavy reliance on government and media endorsements, were the primary victims. They saw Shupai as a safe bet—not just because of its promises, but because they believed the state was behind it.
Regulation failed at every level: Whether due to incompetence, corruption, or simple neglect, local officials and regulators missed—or ignored—all the warning signs. In fact, their support helped the scheme grow. When things fell apart, no one took responsibility.
Story continues below advertisement
People are desperate for financial security: Faced with falling asset values, stagnant wages, and limited upward mobility, many Chinese citizens are hungry for opportunities. Even those who suspected something was off stayed in, hoping to cash out before it collapsed. Final Thoughts
Shupai Yigou's collapse shows that financial scams in China aren't going away—they're evolving. From
peer-to-peer
lending failures to
fake blockchain startup
s, these schemes now use high-tech packaging and trendy buzzwords like 'digital economy' to appear legitimate.
Shupai Yigou was not just a Ponzi scheme—it was a system-wide failure, where greed, blind trust, and lax oversight created the perfect storm. Its victims weren't just investors—they were citizens who believed in a system that ultimately failed to protect them. Until that system changes, this won't be the last tragedy of its kind.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
