On May 15th, a story about "Alipay user being charged 1.84 million yuan for a donation after deactivating payment functions" sparked widespread discussion on social media. According to reports, the core individual involved, a Shanxi user named Lan Xiaohong (pseudonym), stated that after she proactively deactivated all payment functions on her Alipay account, 1.84 million yuan was transferred out overnight for a public welfare activity named "Donate One Yuan, Give Love, Deliver Nutrition." This nearly three-year-long consumer rights battle has not only put Alipay under intense scrutiny but has also raised a critical industry and legal question: within the system logic of payment platforms, are charitable donations excluded from the standard definition of "payment"? What exactly is turned off when a user chooses to deactivate "payment"?
According to the detailed timeline provided by Lan Xiaohong to the media, the incident began on October 19, 2023. That day, after discovering unusual login activity on her Alipay account, she proactively deactivated all payment functions for the account following customer service guidance, out of concern for fund security. However, merely two days later, between 3 AM and 7 AM on October 21, six consecutive deductions occurred from her account, all with charitable organizations as the recipients. The largest single transaction, amounting to 1.84 million yuan, was paid to the "Donate One Yuan, Give Love, Deliver Nutrition" project under the China Foundation for Rural Development. The other payments went to organizations including the China Siyuan Foundation for Poverty Alleviation and the Guizhou Provincial Charity Federation.
Lan Xiaohong initiated her rights defense immediately upon discovering the deductions that morning. Throughout the lengthy three-year process, she found herself trapped in a bureaucratic loop. After reporting to the police, they indicated that the donation records showed voluntary operation, making a case difficult to file, and suggested she first obtain a "theft certificate" from the platform. Alipay responded that such a certificate requires a police request and cannot be provided directly to the user.
Documents issued by the Shanghai Branch of the People's Bank of China during subsequent assistance with the investigation confirmed that, as of the investigation date, the payment functions on Lan Xiaohong's Alipay account were indeed still deactivated. The bank's investigation further revealed a crucial detail: after deactivating payment functions, users genuinely cannot perform routine operations like consumption or transfers, but the payment function for charitable donation scenarios remained active. The 1.84 million yuan donation was completed through a computer device after verifying the payment password. More importantly, the PBOC Shanghai Branch has made a定性 determination regarding Alipay: it found that Alipay Company failed to timely disclose service characteristics to financial consumers, violating relevant regulations, and has required Alipay to optimize and improve its payment services.
Faced with the user's substantial missing funds and three years of inquiries, the involved parties have offered different accounts. On May 15th, Alipay responded that the platform normally executes payment instructions issued from user accounts. As the account in question is suspected of being shared with others, the possibility of involvement in illegal activity cannot be ruled out, and Alipay is seeking assistance from the police. An Alipay staff member disclosed to the media that they had handled the matter multiple times since receiving feedback in 2023, ultimately advising the user to seek resolution through legal channels; the specific cause of this "bizarre donation" would be submitted to authorized managers for verification.
The recipient, the China Foundation for Rural Development, confirmed receiving the 1.84 million yuan donation, stating the funds had been used according to the project's purpose for the "Donate One Yuan, Give Love, Deliver Nutrition" activity and execution was complete. A foundation representative told the media that after verification with Alipay, Alipay's feedback indicated the donation was a "normal action." The foundation also noted that if donor Lan Xiaohong could provide evidence proving the gift was not voluntary or made without her knowledge, they advised her to report to police or pursue legal action; upon obtaining an official, effective legal document, the foundation could initiate a review process for a refund application.
Lan Xiaohong's质疑 points to the core issue:既然 payment functions were deactivated, why could funds still be transferred? She cannot understand why charitable donations could become a "special channel" while the bank confirmed the payment functions were off. Notably, according to tests, in the current version of Alipay, whether donation is possible after "deactivating payment functions (reporting loss)" shows that donation cannot be completed post-loss reporting—the web client logs out immediately after the operation, and while the mobile App operation leaves the web client still online and able to click donate, the transaction cannot be finalized. This test result differs from Lan Xiaohong's experience in 2023, suggesting Alipay may have adjusted related functions since then.
From legal and financial perspectives, charitable donation is本质上 still a payment act, but its legal attributes and rules differ significantly from普通 consumer payment. Legally, charitable donation is a special type of "gift contract." Article 657 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that a gift contract is where the donor无偿 gives his/her property to the donee, and the donee表示 acceptance. Article 34 of the Charity Law of the People's Republic of China clarifies that charitable donation is an activity where natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations voluntarily and无偿 give property based on charitable purposes. Therefore, completion of a donation act signifies transfer of property ownership, and its fund transfer process必然体现 as a payment settlement financially.
Simultaneously, the特殊性 of charitable donation payment lies in its "non-arbitrary revocability." According to Civil Code Article 658, for gift contracts with a public welfare or moral obligation nature, such as disaster relief, poverty alleviation, or aiding the disabled, which are notarized or legally non-revocable, the donor cannot arbitrarily revoke them before transfer of property rights. This rule aims to protect the stability of public welfare causes and the donee's reliance interest. This也可能是 the legal background for the cautious stance of payment platforms and charitable institutions when receiving "abnormal" queries—once a donation is complete and funds are used for the project, revocation or refund involves complex legal procedures and factual determinations.
However, within the underlying rules of non-bank payment institutions, "payment" and "donation" may be quietly categorized into different business types. According to the definition in Article 2 of the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Non-bank Payment Institutions, the core business of non-bank payment institutions is "engaging in payment business such as transferring monetary funds based on electronic payment instructions submitted by the payee or payer." An individual无偿 transferring monetary funds to a foundation undoubtedly constitutes a change in fund ownership from payer to payee,本质上 still a transfer of monetary funds. In reality, some payment institutions' account risk control systems list fund出口 like transfers, consumption, and charitable donations as parallel modules. When users proactively click "deactivate payment functions," they often face a highly simplified prohibition on consumption and transfers, without clarity on whether charitable donations or specific deduction agreements will also be cut off. It is precisely this vast discrepancy between internal business categorization at institutions and the intuitive understanding of the general public that created this bizarre漏洞 of "deactivated payment yet able to donate."
In stark contrast to the user fund security风波 is Ant Group's凌厉攻势 in capital markets. On March 30th, Ant Group completed the equity交割 for
Meanwhile, Ant Group is experiencing a significant profit decline. According to the financial report released by
Comments