近日，廣州一位店主時女士分享自己遇到的令人無語的詐騙經歷。一名來自山東煙台的買家李女士，在短短半年內於她的店鋪下單多達225件商品，卻全部透過「退款掉包」的方式白嫖成功，涉案金額高達五萬元。這起事件之所以能長期未被發現，與店鋪商品種類多、售後流程常規化、以及該買家精心設計的作案手法密切相關。

時女士的店鋪販售從十幾元的小商品到上千元的高價商品不等，商品層級複雜，而售後處理流程偏向標準化，缺乏逐件嚴格查驗，成為李女士反覆作案的突破口。為了避免平台與商家察覺異常，李女士一開始就註冊多個電商帳號，並且所有帳號的收貨地址全都填寫她本人同一個住所。這種低調但持續的操作，使她能在長時間內不被追查。

她最初以普通消費者的身份下單一些低價商品，正常簽收並確認收貨，藉此累積帳號的誠信分與良好消費記錄，降低商家與平台的警覺。在摸索階段，她會對少量高價商品以「拍錯」或「不符合規格」為理由拒收退款，而商家在沒有深究的情況下，往往直接同意，這使得她逐漸膽大。

在掌握商家審核漏洞後，她便開始同時利用不同帳號下單低價與高價商品。低價商品她會正常簽收並確認收貨，而高價商品則以理由充分的「拒收」方式要求全額退款。關鍵的一步在於她會將高價商品快遞包裹上的退件物流單號撕下，重新貼到已簽收的低價商品包裹上，再把這個「掉包」後的包裹退回店家。由於商家通常只核對物流退件單號，不會逐一拆包檢查內容物，便會在無防備的情況下直接為高價商品辦理退款。

透過這種手法，李女士以極低成本、不斷重複地獲取高價商品，之後再將這些商品掛到二手平台售賣，從中獲利。這套流程既隱蔽又高頻，使她在半年內成功進行225次「白嫖式詐騙」而未被及時發現。

事件曝光後，引發電商圈內外對售後審核漏洞與平台風險管理的強烈討論，也促使更多商家重新檢視自身的退貨流程。這起案件凸顯出網購時代新型「掉包詐騙」手法的風險，也提醒商家不能完全依賴物流單號，必要時仍需回收件拆包檢查，以避免遭到同樣的惡意利用。

Recently, a shop owner in Guangzhou, Ms. Shi, shared a bewildering experience of being targeted by a sophisticated scam. A buyer from Yantai, Shandong, Ms. Li, placed a total of 225 orders in Ms. Shi’s store over just six months, but she managed to get all the goods for free through a method of “refund and package swapping,” resulting in losses of up to 50,000 yuan. The success of this scheme was largely due to the store’s wide variety of products, the standard nature of its after-sales procedures, and Ms. Li’s meticulously planned tactics.

Ms. Shi’s store sold items ranging from inexpensive goods costing just tens of yuan to high-value products priced in the thousands. The after-sales process was relatively routine and lacked rigorous inspection, creating an exploitable loophole for Ms. Li. To avoid detection by the platform and the seller, Ms. Li first registered multiple e-commerce accounts, all using her actual residential address. This careful setup allowed her to operate under the radar for an extended period.

Initially, she placed orders for low-priced items using a regular consumer approach, confirming receipt normally. This helped her accumulate account credibility and reduce the alertness of both the platform and the seller. During the trial phase, she experimented with a few high-priced items, claiming she had ordered the wrong product or the item did not match specifications, and requested refunds upon refusal to accept delivery. The seller, rarely verifying these claims, often approved the refunds, which emboldened her over time.

Once she identified the loopholes in the merchant’s system, she escalated her scheme. Using multiple accounts, she would simultaneously order low- and high-priced products from the store. She would accept and confirm the low-priced items normally, but for the high-priced items, she would refuse delivery and request full refunds, citing plausible reasons. The key step involved peeling off the tracking number from the return package of the high-priced item and pasting it onto the package of a low-priced item that had already been received. She would then return this altered package to the seller. Since merchants typically only verify the return tracking number without opening the package, they would issue a full refund for the high-priced item without realizing the switch.

Through this method, Ms. Li was able to repeatedly acquire high-value products at minimal cost, later reselling them on second-hand platforms for profit. Over six months, she successfully executed 225 instances of this “package swap” scam without being detected in time.

The incident has sparked intense discussion within the e-commerce community about after-sales review loopholes and platform risk management. It also prompted many sellers to reassess their return-handling processes. This case highlights the risks posed by new types of online shopping fraud, particularly the “package swap scam,” and serves as a reminder that sellers cannot rely solely on tracking numbers—they must sometimes open and inspect returned packages to prevent similar exploitation.