今年以来，全国多地频现以民宿托管为幌子的诈骗案件。1犯罪分子以超过市场价20%的高额租金为诱饵，承诺每年支付13个月租金、租金每年上涨5%，引诱房东垫付大额装修费用。1随后犯罪团伙拖延施工或直接失联，导致房东蒙受数万至数十万元不等的损失。1
武汉市公安局江岸区分局破获的相关案件涉及200多名受害业主，涉案金额超过1000万元。1调查发现，两家涉事公司均无任何民宿运营、房屋托管相关资质，俱为空壳公司，且均在2025年3月注册成立。1进一步追查发现，实际控制人员隐藏在幕后，通过轮流管理多家同类公司、在不同地方换壳重新运营的方式进行作案。1
杭州一位姓吴的房东于2025年1月17日与杭州团家商业运营管理有限公司桐庺分公司签订合同，支付32970元装修款至今未能追回。1该公司业主维权群已汇集180多位投诉者。1中国政法大学教授谢澍指出，应以"非法占有目的"为核心区分民事违约与刑事诈骗。1
Multiple fraud cases involving vacation rental management have surfaced across China this year, with criminal syndicates luring property owners into depositing large renovation fees by promising inflated rental returns.1 The schemes typically operate by offering rental rates significantly higher than market value—claims of 20 percent above-market compensation, with thirteen months of rent paid annually and annual increases of 5 percent—only to delay construction work or vanish entirely once funds are collected.1
One documented victim, a woman surnamed Wu, signed a contract with Tuanjia Commercial Operations Management Limited Company's Tonglu branch in Hangzhou on January 17, 2025, and paid 32,970 yuan toward renovation costs that remain unrecovered to date.1 The situation extends beyond individual cases: a homeowner support group addressing Tuanjia-related grievances has attracted over 180 complainants.1
Law enforcement has begun cracking down on the scheme. Wuhan police in the Jiang'an district broke up a major operation involving over 200 affected homeowners and more than 10 million yuan in damages.1 Investigators discovered that both companies implicated in the Wuhan case were shell companies with no licenses—they were registered in March 2025 with zero credentials in vacation rental operations or property management services.1 Police also uncovered a pattern of deception: the individuals actually controlling these schemes operate from behind the scenes, cycling through multiple similar companies in different locations under different corporate shells.1
Legal experts emphasize the importance of distinguishing civil breach of contract from criminal fraud. According to Professor Xie Shu of China University of Political Science and Law, the distinction hinges on determining whether there was an intent to illegally occupy funds from the outset.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。