A Cage in the Name of Love: A Legal Analysis of Illegal Detention Cases Involved in "Quitting Internet Addiction" Institutions
Authors | Mak Cheuk-lam and Yiu Nok-hei, Zhuosheng Criminal Law Team
Introduction
March 2026, Sanmenxia, Henan. Twenty-one-year-old college student Li never could have imagined that what was supposed to be a routine visit home to see her family would turn into an 11-day illegal detention. Because her parents disapproved of her romantic partner, she was tricked into getting into a car by relatives who had fabricated a lie, and was then forcibly taken to an institution called “Lixuan Education Information Consulting Co., Ltd.”
There, the doors were locked, her phone was confiscated, and she lost the most basic freedoms of a modern citizen—freedom of movement and freedom of communication. The instructor’s dragging and kicking, along with the “checking-in” video she was forced to record, constituted her entire life over those 11 days.
However, this is not an isolated case; it reflects the long-standing misalignment between societal views on family education and legal boundaries. This article takes this as its starting point to analyze the boundaries of criminal liability between institutions and parents in such cases, to systematize the adjudication rules for similar cases, and to explore how to eradicate this malignant phenomenon at the legal level.
One
Crime and Non-Crime: Deconstructing the Criminal Illegality of Institutional Conduct
In compliance reviews of “internet addiction treatment” institutions, the main points of contention typically revolve around the validity of “parental entrustment agreements” and the classification of “special education.” However, viewed within the framework of the current Criminal Law, such a defense cannot preclude the criminal unlawfulness of the conduct. In light of Article 238 of the Criminal Law and the relevant judicial interpretations, the actions of the Lixuan organization fully satisfy the constituent elements of the crime of illegal detention.
First, regarding the non-transferability of the right to personal liberty.The victim, Li, is a 21-year-old adult university student and, in accordance with the law, enjoys full personal freedom. Even where a parent–child relationship exists, parents do not possess any statutory authority to restrict the personal freedom of their adult children. Article 34 of the Civil Code explicitly stipulates that the duties of a guardian are to protect lawful rights and interests, not to deprive them.
Therefore, the “parental authorization” held by the institution is legally invalid and does not constitute a valid defense against liability for unlawful conduct.
Second, regarding the criminal prosecution standards for objective conduct.The institution, by locking the doors, confiscating communication devices, and prohibiting unauthorized departures, effectively deprived Li of his freedom of movement. According to the standards for initiating criminal prosecution, unlawful detention lasting more than 24 hours shall be subject to case filing. In this case, the detention lasted for 11 days (264 hours) and was accompanied by physical violence such as kicking and dragging, as well as psychological coercion, including the forced recording of a false video.
Pursuant to the latter part of Paragraph 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Law, the aforementioned “circumstances involving assault and insult” directly trigger the statutory mechanism for imposing a heavier penalty.
Third, regarding the concurrence of business qualifications and criminal charges.Upon investigation, it was found that the institution’s business license is limited to “educational consulting services” and “outdoor activity planning,” yet it has been conducting closed‑door behavioral correction programs and charging exorbitant fees. Such unauthorized business activities not only violate market regulation laws and regulations, but in serious cases may also constitute the crime of illegal business operations under Article 225 of the Criminal Law or the crime of fraud under Article 266.
This relationship of concurso imaginário provides multidimensional legal avenues for comprehensively holding institutions accountable.
Table 1: Comparative Chart of the Elements of Criminal Illegality in the Lixuan Organization Case
Two
Application of the Theory of Complicity: Can Parents Be Exempted from Liability on the Ground of “Love”?
This is the most heartbreaking aspect of this case, and also the most challenging point for the defense. In traditional ethics, “there is no such thing as a parent who is not in the right”; but in modern rule of law, “the law shows no favoritism.”
(I) Analysis of the punishability of parental behavior
Whether parents who place their adult children in a closed‑door institution constitute accomplices to the crime of unlawful detention hinges on the existence of a joint criminal intent and the extent of their contribution to the act. If parents, due to cognitive limitations, merely place undue trust in an institution’s publicity without participating in specific management decisions, they are generally not deemed to have committed a crime. However, if, prior to the handover, the parents reach a substantive agreement with the institution—such as explicitly demanding “strict discipline,” “restriction of contact with the outside world,” or “no release without my consent”—their conduct may constitute incitement to or aiding and abetting unlawful detention.
From the perspective of objective imputation in causal relationships, without the parents’ deceptive conduct—such as fabricating reasons to lure their children into the institution—and financial support, the institution would find it difficult to establish physical control over the victim. Under the premise of shared intent, the parents’ conduct no longer constitutes mere family discipline but rather amounts to a concerted act of restricting personal liberty.
(II) Theoretical Support from a Scholar's Perspective
In response to suchChaos, Professor Wang Yue, Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Law at Peking University, pointed out: “Internet addiction treatment centers that operate under the guise of hospitals or educational institutions mislead parents into believing their children are ‘sick,’ fabricate facts to gain trust, and charge exorbitant fees, which may constitute fraud.” So-called “behavioral correction” that goes against the recipient’s will is not education but rather a form of animal‑training‑style brainwashing… Parents who deceive or forcibly take their children away are already acting illegally. “
” This judgment is firmly grounded in law.
First of all, custody does not equate to control. Article 34 of the Civil Code explicitly stipulates that guardianship duties are limited to “protection” and “representation,” and do not involve deprivation. Secondly, the law explicitly prohibits any restriction on personal freedom. Article 17 of the Law on the Protection of Minors and Article 35 of the Civil Code together establish a dual safeguard: the former directly prohibits the unlawful restriction of the ward’s freedom, while the latter sets the baseline requirement that all actions must be taken in the best interests of the ward.
Therefore, it is evident that deception and unlawful confinement perpetrated by parents under the guise of “love” are legally invalid and constitute unlawful conduct. Modern rule of law has long abandoned the patriarchal notion of regarding children as the private property of their parents; any form of “discipline” that exceeds the bounds of legal authorization is, in essence, a violation of the constitutional right to personal freedom.
(III) The Theory of Expectation of Possibility and Judicial Reality
Although the doctrine of “possibility of reasonable expectation” exists in criminal law theory, and judicial practice rarely holds parents criminally liable in order to prevent the disintegration of family ethics, this does not mean that parents are exempt from legal responsibility. In the civil sphere, if parents are at fault, they shall be held jointly and severally liable for the tort together with the institution. Pursuant to Article 1,168 of the Civil Code, the victim has the right to claim joint and several liability for damages from the parents.
This is an objective assessment that is independent of criminal liability and also serves as an important avenue for victims to seek redress.
Table 2: Hierarchical Analysis of Parents’ Legal Responsibilities in Different Scenarios
Three
Case Retrieval and Empirical Analysis of Sentencing
In order to accurately determine the appropriate scope of judicial discretion in this case, the author has reviewed criminal judgments nationwide involving “internet addiction treatment” institutions over the past few years. By systematically reviewing the relevant judicial guidelines, a clear reference framework can be established for determining the conviction and sentencing in this case.
(I) The overall evolution of case adjudication rules
By comparing earlier case law (around 2009) with more recent precedents (from 2018 onward), it can be observed that judicial practice has undergone a clear shift in the characterization of such conduct, moving from an “oversight-oriented” approach to one that treats it as intentional crime. In the early “Nanning Departure Case,” the defendants were convicted of negligent homicide; however, more recent cases such as the “Yuzhang Academy Case” and the “Hefei Zhengneng Case” have clearly demonstrated that the act of unlawful detention carried out by unlicensed institutions constitutes a crime in itself, and parental authorization or entrustment does not serve as a valid defense to criminal liability.
Table 3: Summary Table of Similar Cases
(II) Empirical Analysis of Judicial Rules and Sentencing Characteristics
Based on the Supreme People’s Court’s “Guiding Opinions on Sentencing for Common Crimes” and the local implementing rules, and taking into account the common characteristics of such cases, the following empirical inferences regarding sentencing patterns can be drawn:
First, the determination of the sentencing starting point.For unlawful detention that does not result in any harm, the starting point for sentencing is typically set between three months of detention and one year of imprisonment. When determining the specific amount, courts often take into account the degree of confinement in the detention facility (e.g., whether it is a “small black room”) and the particular circumstances of the individual concerned (e.g., whether the person is a minor or a student).
Second, the rule for the cumulative determination of the severity of penalties.On the basis of the starting sentence, for each additional day of detention, the sentence shall be increased by one to two months. In practice, if the duration of detention significantly exceeds the 24-hour threshold for initiating a case as stipulated in the judicial interpretation (e.g., lasting more than one week), the increase in the sentence typically becomes correspondingly larger.
Third, the application of the proportionality principle in sentencing. Circumstances of assault and humiliation: These are standard aggravating factors in such cases and, pursuant to law, may increase the base sentence by up to 20%. Causing injury: If the act results in injuries classified as minor injury or above, the offense no longer falls solely under the crime of unlawful detention; instead, it should be subject to cumulative sentencing together with the crime of intentional injury under Article 234 of the Criminal Law, potentially resulting in a prison term exceeding three years. Detention of multiple individuals: If several trainees are detained at once, the sentence will likewise be increased accordingly.
(III) On the judicial attitude toward the "parental entrustment" circumstance.
In all similar cases, a common judicial rule is that documents such as entrustment agreements and enrollment applications signed by parents cannot be used as grounds for imposing a lighter sentence on the defendant.
Courts generally hold that personal liberty is a fundamental right conferred by the Constitution, and guardians are not authorized to transfer this right to unqualified commercial entities through private means of redress. Conversely, when institutions exploit parents’ anxiety for profit and commit crimes, this is often regarded as an aggravating factor reflecting a high degree of subjective malice and is not taken into account as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.
Four
Institutional Reflection: Why Do “Yuzhang Academies” Keep Resurfacing?
The inherent lag of the law is particularly evident in cases of this kind. Even after the Yuzhang Academy case was adjudicated, the Lixuan institution continued to operate, and the systemic loopholes behind this situation deserve serious reflection.
(I) The "nine dragons controlling the water" issue in regulatory functions
The Lixuan Institution case has exposed the primary issue of a failure in administrative oversight. The institution’s business license indicates that its scope of operations is limited to “educational consulting” and “non-clinical psychological counseling,” yet it has in fact been conducting closed‑door management and behavioral correction. This “licensed but unlicensed” situation has resulted in a fragmentation of regulatory authority:
Table 4: Comparison of Regulatory Powers and Responsibilities vs. Enforcement Gaps in Institutions Addressing Internet Addiction/Behavioral Rehabilitation
This pattern of “each entity managing only its own segment yet none fully responsible” allows unqualified entities to persist for a long time in the gray area.
(II) Liability Mechanism from the Perspective of Foreign Law
With regard to closed‑door “behavioral correction facilities,” certain U.S. states—such as Utah and Maryland—have, in recent years, enacted specific legislation and established judicial precedents that impose relatively stringent liability regimes on so‑called “treatment camps” (the Troubled Teen Industry/Residential Treatment Programs). Its core characteristics can be summarized in three points:
First, there is a tendency toward strict liability.Courts in multiple states have held in their case law that, as long as an institution engages in acts of physical restraint that go beyond the scope of a typical boarding school—such as locking up, restraining, or forcibly isolating individuals—and personal injury occurs during such periods, the institution shall be liable for damages regardless of whether the parents consented or whether the institution acted with subjective intent.
Some states further stipulate that if an institution engages in fraudulent conduct, such as concealing qualifications or making false claims about therapeutic efficacy, punitive damages may be applied, with the amount potentially reaching three to ten times the actual losses.
Second, mandatory information disclosure and licensing/filing requirements.In some U.S. states, such facilities are required to apply to the state government for a “Residential Treatment Facility License” and to fully disclose to parents their staff’s background, prior complaint records, and the specific measures used to restrict personal freedom.
Failure to fulfill the disclosure obligation directly constitutes a violation of the law and may result in revocation of the license and administrative penalties.
Third, the exculpatory effect of “parental consent” shall be abolished.In most U.S. states, statutory law or case law clearly provides that even if a guardian signs a waiver or consent form, it does not absolve an institution of liability for false imprisonment, abuse, or death resulting from negligence. Courts generally hold that fundamental personal rights—namely, the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person—may not be waived or transferred by contract or parental authority.
In contrast, China’s current legal framework primarily adopts the principle of fault-based liability, requiring the victim to provide evidence proving the institution’s negligence and the causal link. This poses significant challenges for victims who are in a closed environment and have limited capacity to gather evidence. Future legislative amendments could consider introducing the principle of presumed fault, whereby damages occurring during a period when an institution restricts an individual’s personal freedom are initially presumed to be attributable to the institution’s fault, requiring the institution to prove its innocence, thereby reducing the cost of rights protection for the victim.
Table 5: Comparative Chart of Legal Liability Mechanisms for Closed-Door Rehabilitation/Training Institutions in China and the United States
(III) Legislative recommendations for improving legal regulation
Based on the foregoing analysis, in order to curb such crimes at their source, it is recommended that legislation and regulatory frameworks be improved along the following three dimensions:
First, clarify the principle of substantive supervision.Legislation should look beyond the formalities of “educational consulting” and “outdoor training,” and explicitly prohibit any commercial entity from imposing closed‑door restrictions on the personal freedom of adults under the guise of “correction” or “special training.” Any business activity that involves restricting personal freedom shall be brought under the special industry management jurisdiction of the public security organs.
Second, establish a system of industry bans and credit-based penalties.Natural persons who have previously been subject to criminal penalties for offenses such as unlawful detention and intentional injury shall be included on the negative list for the “minors’ protection” and “educational services” sectors.For institutions found to have committed serious violations, a “dual penalty” approach shall be applied: their licenses shall be revoked, and their legal representatives shall be barred from re-entering the relevant industry.
Third, strengthen public legal education on the boundaries of exercising guardianship rights.Judicial administrative organs should include the provisions in the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of Minors concerning the boundaries of guardianship within the scope of priority legal publicity and education. Clearly inform guardians that their guardianship duties are limited to protection and representation and do not, under any circumstances, include the right to restrict the ward’s personal freedom through third-party agencies, thereby severing the supply-and-demand chain of the gray market.
Five
Conclusion
A female college student was tricked into a “gaming addiction” rehabilitation school for 11 days; every minute of those 11 days was a violation of the rule of law. As lawyers, when handling such cases, we should not merely focus on the application of legal provisions; rather, we ought to use each individual case as a lens through which to identify the underlying social ills.
What truly spirals out of control is never a child’s internet use or romantic choices, but rather parents’ overreach in asserting dominion over their children’s lives—and the gray‑market industries that recklessly cater to this desire for control. Only when the light of the law shines into those closed-off corners adorned with the sign “For Your Own Good,” when parents realize that “love” cannot be used as an excuse for violence, and when institutional operators understand that “making money” should not come at the cost of imprisonment, can such tragedies truly come to an end.
Zhuosheng Criminal
Team Introduction
Zhiheng · Introduction