TYGlobe

In recent years, disputes over paid services related to “fortune-telling”, “ritual ceremonies” and “feng shui for luck adjustment” have increased markedly. Beauty clinics bundle “wisdom awakening” service packages; online platforms host “relationship-recovery masters”; fees for grave relocation and feng shui consultation may reach hundreds of thousands of RMB. The number of such disputes entering civil litigation and criminal proceedings has also risen concurrently.

Two common misconceptions exist regarding such disputes: first, that since transactions are consensual, the fees paid cannot be recovered; second, that all paid “metaphysical” services constitute fraud. Judicial practice shows both interpretations are inaccurate. Current adjudicative rules have become relatively stable. At the civil level, service contracts centred on metaphysical practices are void for contravening public order and good morals, and fees collected shall in principle be returned. At the criminal level, fraud is only established where all elements are satisfied: fabrication of facts, induced erroneous understanding, and the purpose of illegal possession. Mere consumption out of personal belief or paid sinology tutoring does not constitute a criminal offence. This article sorts out relevant recent judgments.

I. Civil Aspect: Contracts for Metaphysical Services Are Void; Fees Shall Be Refunded in Principle

Civil judgments are mainly grounded in two provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. Paragraph 2 of Article 153 stipulates that a civil juristic act contravening public order and good morals shall be void. Article 157 provides that where a juristic act is void, property acquired by virtue of such act shall be returned. Paid services whose subject matter includes fortune-telling, ritual ceremonies, luck adjustment and disaster elimination are consistently held by courts nationwide to contravene public order and good morals, rendering the contract devoid of legal binding force ab initio. There is little controversy over this rule; divergences in individual cases mainly concern the scope of restitution, interest treatment and set-off of fees.

The civil judgment No. (2025) Hei 0381 Min Chu No.793 issued by Hulin People’s Court, Heilongjiang Province, represents one of the publicly reported cases with a large restitution amount. Over one year, Wang paid more than RMB 440,000 for services including “harmony rituals”, “cutting peach-blossom spells” and “Wenchang rituals”. Based on quoted prices in WeChat chat records, the court confirmed the formation of a paid metaphysical service relationship, held the contract void, and ordered full refund. Two points merit attention in this case. First, Wang previously filed a fraud report, but public security authorities declined to open a criminal case. The subsequent civil claim succeeded, demonstrating that non-filing of a criminal case does not bar civil recovery of funds. Second, given that Wang knowingly participated repeatedly and bore fault, the court rejected the claim for interest. Granting principal reimbursement while denying interest is a common outcome in such litigation.

Courts have taken a clear stance on the defence that “feng shui belongs to traditional culture”. In the appellate judgment No. (2023) Lu 06 Min Zhong No.9791 of Yantai Intermediate People’s Court, Shandong Province, the appellant argued the contract was valid on the grounds of ancestral feng shui heritage and absence of prohibitive statutory provisions. The second-instance court ruled that feng shui consultation lacks scientific basis, charging fees for such services contravenes public order and good morals and harms public interests, the contract was void, and RMB 77,100 should be refunded. The Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court adopted identical reasoning in a recent case concerning “fortune-telling” and “wisdom awakening” services at a beauty salon, ordering refund of RMB 58,888 for metaphysical services, while separately dissolving the contract for regular beauty packages and ordering refund of unused balances. Metaphysical items and ordinary consumption were dealt with separately.

A case in Keqiao, Shaoxing draws finer distinctions on the nature of payments and was selected as a typical case in the 2025 work report of Zhejiang High People’s Court. Of the RMB 90,000 in dispute, RMB 30,000 for “feng shui fees” was fully refunded, as the service marketed fictitious disasters such as “preventing traffic accidents and unexpected calamities”. The remaining RMB 60,000 “apprenticeship fee” involved genuine I Ching interpretation and actual learning by the student. The court discretionally recognised RMB 12,000 as lawful training expenses and ordered refund of the remaining RMB 48,000, affirmed on appeal by Shaoxing Intermediate People’s Court. This case illustrates that courts do not invalidate all consideration for sinology services. The distinguishing criterion is whether the core transaction consists of cultural knowledge transmission or the resolution of fabricated misfortunes.

The restitution amount is also affected by performance status and evidence. In the judgment No. (2024) Zhe 0782 Min Chu No.3386 of Yiwu People’s Court, the recipient promised an “85% chance of reconciliation” and stipulated “non-refundable upon payment”. The court still ordered full refund of RMB 9,347, confirming that “no refund” clauses have no legal effect when a contract is void. The judgment No. (2025) Lu 0305 Min Chu No.461 of Linzi People’s Court, Zibo deducted sums already repaid and ordered reimbursement of RMB 16,395.40 after considering performance. The “immortality apprenticeship” case heard by Huaiyin People’s Court, Jinan ordered full refund of over RMB 110,000, and found a third party merely collecting funds without personal benefit not jointly liable for restitution. In a grave relocation and luck-adjustment dispute in Dalian, the claimant paid RMB 284,800 and recovered RMB 150,000 via court mediation. Two “rituals for relationship reconciliation” cases in Pinggui People’s Court, Hezhou, Guangxi and Dunhua Forest People’s Court, Jilin both ordered service fee refunds.

Five conclusions may be summarised from these civil judgments:

Contracts whose core subject matter is metaphysical practices are void for breach of public order and good morals, even if packaged under sinology, folk custom, training or research programmes.

Monies received shall in principle be fully refunded; interest claims are generally rejected where both parties are at fault; partial performance may trigger discretionary set-off.

Where metaphysical services are bundled with ordinary consumption, courts conduct substantive review and handle each separately.

Restitution liability rests on the party actually providing services and obtaining benefits.

WeChat chat logs and transfer vouchers constitute key evidence for findings.

II. Criminal Aspect: Constituent Elements of Fraud and Defences

Article 266 of the Criminal Code defines fraud as conduct where, for the purpose of illegal possession, an actor fabricates facts or conceals the truth, inducing the victim into a mistaken understanding and disposition of property based thereon. A high service fee, ineffective service or post-payment regret alone cannot establish criminal liability.

A notable non-conviction case is the alleged fraud case of Master Shizhijue of Zhaojue Temple. Believers voluntarily commissioned fire offering prayers for family illnesses and paid over RMB 40,000, then reported the case after failing to achieve expected outcomes. The defendant was detained for 548 days. After two supplementary investigations, the procuratorate withdrew the prosecution on insufficient evidence. This ruling shows post-hoc regret or disappointment cannot retroactively prove mistaken understanding at the time of payment. Voluntary payment of reasonable consideration out of genuine religious belief does not satisfy the causal requirement for fraud. In practice, a considerable share of such reports terminate at the non-filing stage of public security organs, as seen in the Hulin civil case where the claimant brought civil action after receiving the non-filing notice.

Convicted cases follow three typical patterns:

Fabrication of calamities. In criminal judgment No. (2021) Gui 0302 Xing Chu No.157 of Xiufeng People’s Court, Guilin, Wang Chen fabricated excuses such as “wealth leakage in eight characters”, “rats invading the house in one’s horoscope requiring reconstruction”, and “unclean entities attached to the body”. He defrauded three victims of more than RMB 490,000, squandered the proceeds to settle personal debts and was sentenced to over eight years’ imprisonment.

Faked identity and overpriced props. In criminal judgment No. (2023) Lu 0902 Xing Chu No.14 of Taishan District People’s Court, Lin claimed to be a master versed in both Buddhism and Taoism via livestreaming. He resold crystal balls and luck charms purchased online for dozens of yuan as high-priced fortune-adjustment artefacts, defrauding RMB 170,000. The defence argument that this merely constituted civil commercial fraud and not criminal offence was rejected; he received a five-year prison sentence.

Criminal costs are not deducted from the fraud amount. In criminal ruling No. (2025) Yu 01 Xing Zhong No.300 of Chongqing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, Yang fabricated stories of “being cursed” and “stepmother cursing father” to defraud over RMB 1,040,000. Expenses incurred buying ritual implements and performing ceremonies to gain victims’ trust were treated as criminal costs and not subtracted from the fraud sum. The ruling also noted reasonable voluntary donations in legitimate religious and folk customs are permissible, but fabricating disasters and demanding huge sums exceeds that boundary.

Sentencing differences mainly stem from mitigating circumstances. In criminal judgment No. (2024) Liao 0321 Xing Chu No.95 of Tai’an People’s Court, Li defrauded more than RMB 120,000 via fortune-telling and fox deity worship. With voluntary surrender, full restitution and victim forgiveness, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with four years’ probation. Zhu in Luqiao, Taizhou attracted clients through tarot divination, forged client feedback screenshots and defrauded RMB 110,000 under the guise of “magnetic field adjustment” and “reconciliation rituals”. He actively compensated victims and obtained forgiveness, receiving three years’ imprisonment suspended for four years. Where amounts are comparable, voluntary surrender, recovery of illicit gains and victim forgiveness often determine whether a custodial sentence or probation applies.

A highly referential case in the People’s Court Case Library is the case of Wei Mouliang (rape, forcible indecency and fraud), appellate judgment No. (2019) Yue 01 Xing Zhong No.354 of Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, library entry No.2025-02-1-182-004. Its holding: where an actor exploits the victim’s belief in “warding off evil”, fabricates lies such as “moles bearing evil curses” or “son will meet misfortune” to create fear, inducing the victim to borrow money and pay sums far exceeding reasonable consideration, this constitutes fraud committed with the purpose of illegal possession. Sexual intercourse obtained by such deception shall additionally incur rape conviction, with combined punishment for multiple offences. This holding clarifies that even seemingly “voluntary” payment triggered by fear manufactured through fictitious calamities still satisfies the causal element of fraud. In a senior fraud typical case released by Meizhou Intermediate People’s Court, Huang falsely claimed master identity and defrauded elderly persons by performing healing rituals, receiving a five-year-and-nine-month prison sentence.

The distinction between conviction and non-conviction remains rooted in fraud’s constituent elements. Objectively, neutral, probabilistic discussion of numerology qualifies as cultural interpretation and courts do not characterise it as false facts. Definitive, personalised predictions of fictitious calamities directly tied to “resolution upon payment” amount to fabricated facts in criminal law. Causally, where payment arises from autonomous belief or cultural learning, the causal chain is broken. Where payment is driven by fear, even if outwardly voluntary, causation is established. Subjectively, fund destination, performance, business model and whether price corresponds to genuine consideration are primary factors assessing the purpose of illegal possession. Amount affects sentencing only, not offence classification.

III. Distinction between Civil, Administrative and Criminal Liability

Comparing civil and criminal precedents, four tiers of liability apply to such conduct:

Lawful sinology and folk custom services: classics interpretation, philosophical discussion, orthodox religious rituals, aesthetic consultation, neutral content, reasonable pricing, no efficacy promises, protected by law. The RMB12,000 training fee preserved in the Keqiao case falls into this category.

Civil nullity: services centred on luck adjustment and disaster elimination, without fabricated threats or coercion; liability limited to refund of fees.

Administrative violation: the Public Security Administration Punishment Law prescribes detention and fines for minor property deception using such means.

Criminal offence: fabricating calamities, creating panic and obtaining property with the purpose of illegal possession, subject to criminal sanctions.

This classification carries practical implications for all parties. For payors, rejection of criminal filing does not terminate remedies; filing an action for declaration of contract nullity is viable. For practitioners, losing civil refund litigation does not eliminate risks: transfer records and chat content uncovered in civil judgments may serve as evidence in criminal proceedings. For judicial authorities, contract nullity does not automatically equal fraud.

IV. Compliance Tips for Practitioners

Service content must not contain fabricated calamities. Definitive statements directly linking payment to disaster resolution, such as “certain bloody disaster” or “retribution unless resolved”, trigger both civil invalidity and criminal fraud risk.

Fees must match real service value. Where cultural artefacts are priced higher on the pretext of “blessing”, “warding off evil” or “luck conversion”, the gap between purchase cost and selling price may be used as evidence of illegal possession intent.

Identity must be authentic. Falsifying religious practitioner status, inventing titles and fabricating client testimonials are key facts cited in judgments to prove deception.

Preserve transaction trails. Written agreements, clearly marked prices and verifiable service records help courts distinguish sinology education from metaphysical transactions. Bundling metaphysical items with beauty, wellness or other legitimate businesses will cause that portion to be deemed void and refundable, and negatively impact compliance assessment of the core business.

V. Consumer Guidance for Rights Protection

Preserve evidence first. Chat records showing efficacy promises, fabricated calamities and quotations, plus bank transfer records, constitute primary evidence. Successful reported judgments all rely on complete chat and transfer records.

Select appropriate remedies. Negotiation is preferred for small sums. Failing that, file a lawsuit requesting confirmation of contract nullity and refund. Where the provider fabricates disasters, threatens, fakes identity or disappears after receiving payment, report to public security authorities. Criminal asset recovery and civil claims may proceed concurrently; refusal of criminal filing does not preclude civil litigation.

Maintain reasonable expectations on outcomes. Interest claims are seldom upheld; partial performance may lead to discretionary set-off. More importantly, prevention in advance: paying for cultural knowledge is legitimate, but paying for manufactured fear carries inherent risk.

Existing precedents show judicial attitude is clear: legitimate sinology services with fees are legally protected. Those operating metaphysical businesses profiting from fear must refund fees civilly; criminal liability applies where fraud is established. At civil law level, public order and good morals form an inviolable transaction bottom line. At criminal law level, constituent elements set the threshold for criminalisation. Understanding these two boundaries protects both practitioners and consumers from unnecessary losses.