记者丨林汉垚 编辑丨周炎炎 9月15日，国家金融监管总局、公安部联合发布第一批金融领域"黑灰产"违法犯罪典型案例，其中两例案件均为 以"代理退保"名义实施敲诈勒索案。在本案中，法院以敲诈勒索罪判处案中主犯林某某有期徒刑十一年，并处罚 金十万元；以敲诈勒索罪判处主犯马某某有期徒刑十年，并处罚金六万元。 近年来，国家监管部门多次提醒，一些不法分子自称资深专业律师、业内专业人士等，在小红书、微信、抖音、 快手等自媒体平台发布信息，宣称"国家出台退保政策""退保新规"等，以"代理退保""代理维权"名义招揽业务，声 称消费者购买的保险无论多长时间、多少金额均可帮助其"全额退保"，怂恿或诱骗消费者委托其办理退保等事项 以谋取不正当利益。 记者调查发现， 目前小红书平台仍能检索到大量"退保攻略""维权经验"的内容分享，其实质是引流至微信、QQ 等私域渠道，开展非法"代理退保"业务。 平台警示难阻黑产渗透 "代理退保"黑产通常由一些非法中介组织或个人，打着"代理退保""代理维权"的幌子，在社交平台上发布"可办理 高额退保"等信息，收取高额手续费，指导消费者采用虚构事实、伪造证据等手段向监管部门投诉，从而达到退保 目的非法活动 ...

Core Points - The article highlights the emergence of illegal "agent refund" activities in the financial sector, particularly through social media platforms, where individuals pose as professionals to exploit consumers [1][2][13] - Regulatory bodies have intensified efforts to combat these illegal practices, leading to significant legal actions against offenders [1][12][14] Group 1: Illegal Activities - "Agent refund" schemes are typically operated by illegal intermediaries who charge high fees and encourage consumers to fabricate evidence to file complaints against insurance companies [2][4] - The illegal activities have resulted in substantial financial losses for insurance companies, with offenders inducing consumers to demand refunds that exceed the actual cash value of their policies [12][17] Group 2: Regulatory Response - The National Financial Regulatory Administration and the Ministry of Public Security have issued warnings and taken legal actions against individuals involved in these schemes, with notable cases resulting in lengthy prison sentences [1][12] - Regulatory bodies have emphasized the need for stricter content management on social media platforms to prevent the spread of misleading information related to insurance refunds [5][6] Group 3: Impact on Consumers - Consumers who engage with illegal intermediaries face multiple risks, including loss of insurance coverage and potential financial exploitation [16][17] - The presence of "agent refund" schemes disrupts the normal complaint and redress mechanisms available to consumers, leading to broader market distortions [14][15]