Considering that this guy was a scammer (even if involuntary), it's good to take with a grain of salt what he says.
There are things that don't add up in pretty much every paragraph.
- he resigned because his contract was expiring. Why didn't he just wait until the contract actually expired.
- he took his luggage and passport and headed for "a hotel", "planning" to go to the airport the next day. Why was he headed for a hotel? Where did he live during his 8 months in Cambodia? Why couldn't he just sleep for the night in the same place, and then go to the airport next day? Did he have an airplane ticket? You don't just go to the airport and get a ticket there
- some people force him to go in a van. An knife point. At some point they told him he is being "sold" to a "Company". Why did they need to tell him that? If you are in the business of kidnapping people and delivering them to someone for money, the last thing you want is to explain your victims what you are doing. Just keep you mouth shut, deliver the victim, collect the money, and take the next contract.
- then he was in a "syndicate" for less than a week. He found out what he was supposed to do (scam people online), but he refused. Really? Who in their right mind is kidnapped and then refuses the orders of their captors? If they tell you to eat dirt, you eat dirt. If they tell you to kill someone, I understand, you refuse. But if they tell you to scam someone online, you refuse? Come on ...
- so he refused, and they handcuffed him to a bed, beat him up and electrocuted him for 3 days. He considered committing suicide. All because he did not want to scam people online. I don't know, maybe I'm not a hero by nature, but I'd agree to scamming people in half an hour if I'm beaten and electrocuted. Ok, make that 10 minutes.
- then he was moved to another place. This was big, and had various departments, like Costumer Service, and ... wait. Just wait. They had a department of "Human Resources".
- he tells his bosses he's willing to learn so they "send him for training". We don't know where, but by now it's clear he's not a captive in a cell anymore.
- he learns various tricks of the con artist business. Of course, he would never try to con us, his readers.
- he impresses his bosses, who give his phone back. He starts messaging his friends and family in China, the police and the Chinese embassy. Somehow they come and get him out. Sometime in December 2021
- but they don't repatriate him for some reason. Why not? If I, an American citizen, go to Columbia and get kidnapped and stay with my captors in the jungle for one year, and the American authorities come and rescue me, will they expect me to buy a plane ticket home from my own money? What money? Are the Chinese authorities any different? Difficult to say, but it really stretches the imagination that they will rescue a hostage, and then tell him to buy his own ticket home.
- so, as of the time of the writing (April 22), he was stuck in Cambodia. The article tells us that meanwhile (between April and November) the guy managed to go home
Now, let's say the "Company" was really in the kidnapping and torturing business. I'm pretty sure in all jurisdictions in the world, kidnapping and torturing are much worse crimes than online scams (and carrying much worse punishments). If a "Company" decides to take such a risk, then why not just get the ransom? You're already guilty of kidnapping and torturing, just get a quick buck, and move on. Why would you train someone to perpetrate a much lower offense, with a very doubtful return on investment?
What is more likely? That he was kidnapped and tortured, or that he was willingly scamming people online, then caught, and then cooked up the story that he was doing it against his heroic resistance?
> I'm pretty sure in all jurisdictions in the world
The rule of law must be effective for the jurisdiction to be impacting. ...And the weights are not universal - maybe theoretically, but not culturally.
> why not just get the ransom
Who would be paying it? And what is more profitable?
> very doubtful return on investment
Documents show that those business have returns. They exist in Europe and can employ a large number of people.
Considering that this guy was a scammer (even if involuntary), it's good to take with a grain of salt what he says.
There are things that don't add up in pretty much every paragraph.
Now, let's say the "Company" was really in the kidnapping and torturing business. I'm pretty sure in all jurisdictions in the world, kidnapping and torturing are much worse crimes than online scams (and carrying much worse punishments). If a "Company" decides to take such a risk, then why not just get the ransom? You're already guilty of kidnapping and torturing, just get a quick buck, and move on. Why would you train someone to perpetrate a much lower offense, with a very doubtful return on investment?What is more likely? That he was kidnapped and tortured, or that he was willingly scamming people online, then caught, and then cooked up the story that he was doing it against his heroic resistance?