在中國大陸，曾有多起女性與富有男性發生關係後懷孕，之後以「處理費」為名向男方索取金錢，並聲稱不會將孩子生下。然而部分案例中，這些女性實際上選擇在海外產子，之後回到大陸，再次向男方要求更高金額，並主張孩子具有繼承權，要求「認祖歸宗」或參與財產分配。這類事件引發外界對其中法律與道德層面的關注。

以過去媒體報導為例，台灣前首富王永慶之子王文洋曾捲入一樁風波，有報導指出他與一位年約二十多歲的女子透過援助交際發生性關係後，對方懷孕並向他提出高達十億元新台幣的贍養費要求。該女子據稱在男生知曉的情況下將孩子生下，但是原本承諾每年給200萬，直到孩子到20歲，希望能一次支付4千萬。但事後再度向王男提出支付10億要求，甚至希望孩子能取得其姓氏，主張應享有繼承權。

這類行為是否構成詐欺罪，需從法律構成要件審慎分析。根據中華民國《刑法》第339條的規定，詐欺罪需具備「使人陷於錯誤而交付財物」的情況。如果女方於一開始即有隱瞞真實意圖、假借墮胎為由向男方索取金錢，而事後另有計畫地產子並再次索賠，在證據充分的前提下，理論上或可構成詐欺行為。然而，這類案件在實務上舉證困難，檢察官必須證明女方在最初就有「詐騙故意」，且使對方在錯誤認知下交付財物，這通常需要書面、通訊或錄音等明確證據支撐，否則難以認定。

即便男女雙方並無婚姻關係，只要孩子經過親子鑑定確認與男方有血緣關係，根據中華民國《民法》規定，該子女與婚生子具有相同繼承權。只要法院認定親子關係存在，即使父方未婚未認領，法院仍可強制視為親生關係成立。這種情況下，孩子即可依法要求繼承遺產或請求撫養費，與其出身是否來自婚姻關係無關。因此，即使女方與男方並非配偶，只要親子關係成立，孩子即享有財產分配的法定地位。

至於女方若再度提出高額金錢要求，是否構成恐嚇或不當得利，則須視其言行而定。如果她以「不給錢就公開孩子身分」或其他具壓迫性的手段威脅男方，即可能觸犯《刑法》第304條的恐嚇罪；若以不實說法使對方交付巨額金錢，亦可能構成不當得利或民事詐欺。然而，若男方基於維護隱私、自願支付金錢與對方和解，則屬於民事協議關係，不涉刑責。

總體來說，這類事件牽涉道德、家庭與財產權的多重面向，特別是在親子關係與法律責任認定上，需透過具體證據與司法程序加以釐清。媒體報導雖引起社會關注，但在法律上並非判決事實，實際情況仍需依據法院調查與判斷為準。對於涉入類似情況的當事人而言，建議尋求專業律師協助，才能在合法且合理的框架下保障雙方及子女權益。

In mainland China, there have been multiple incidents where women became pregnant after having relationships with wealthy men, then demanded money from the men under the pretense of a “settlement fee,” promising not to give birth to the child. However, in some of these cases, the women chose to give birth overseas and later returned to China, making further monetary demands and asserting that the child had inheritance rights. They sought recognition of paternity and claimed the child should be entitled to a share of the man’s assets. These situations have sparked public concern regarding the legal and moral implications involved.

One notable example reported by the media involves Winston Wang, the son of former Taiwanese business tycoon Wang Yung-ching. Reports alleged that Wang engaged in a transactional relationship with a woman in her twenties, which led to her pregnancy. She allegedly requested NT$1 billion in support payments. While the child was reportedly born with Wang’s knowledge, it was initially agreed that NT$2 million would be provided annually until the child turned 20, totaling NT$40 million. However, the woman later demanded a lump sum of NT$1 billion and pushed for the child to take Wang’s surname, claiming inheritance rights.

Whether such conduct constitutes fraud depends on careful analysis of the legal elements involved. According to Article 339 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China (Taiwan), fraud requires that a person be misled into a false belief and thereby deliver property or money. If the woman had concealed her true intentions from the outset—pretending she would abort the child in order to obtain money—and later gave birth with a plan to make further demands, this might constitute fraud, provided there is sufficient evidence. However, such cases are difficult to prosecute in practice. Prosecutors must prove that the woman had fraudulent intent at the beginning and that the man was misled into handing over money. Strong evidence, such as written communication, messages, or audio recordings, would typically be required.

Even in the absence of marriage, if a DNA test confirms that the child is biologically related to the man, Taiwanese civil law grants the child the same inheritance rights as a legitimate child. Once a court recognizes the parent-child relationship, even if the father is unmarried and has not formally acknowledged the child, the law can establish paternity. In such cases, the child has a legal right to inherit or request child support, regardless of the parents’ marital status. Therefore, even without a spousal relationship, once biological paternity is confirmed, the child is legally entitled to a share of the father’s estate.

As for whether the woman's further monetary demands constitute extortion or unjust enrichment, this depends on her behavior. If she threatens to reveal the child’s identity unless paid, she could potentially violate Article 304 of the Criminal Code, which deals with coercion or threats. If she makes false statements that lead the man to pay a large amount of money, it could be considered unjust enrichment or civil fraud. However, if the man voluntarily agrees to a financial settlement to protect his privacy, and both parties reach a civil agreement, then the matter would typically not involve criminal liability.

In conclusion, these cases touch on complex issues of morality, family law, and property rights. Especially regarding parentage and legal obligations, outcomes must be determined through concrete evidence and proper judicial procedures. While media coverage may draw public attention, it does not constitute a legal judgment. The actual facts must be established by court investigations and rulings. Anyone involved in such a situation is strongly advised to consult a legal professional to ensure that their rights—and those of the child—are protected within a lawful and reasonable framework.