Recently, Jiangxi Nanchang Railway Transport Court publicly heard a case of reselling tickets. The defendant, Liu Jinfu, was charged with reselling tickets through ticket snatching software. The court sentenced him to one year and six months'imprisonment and a fine of $1.24 million. The case sparked a heated debate on the internet.
It was reported that two years ago, Liu Jinfu in the 12306 website real name registration account number 935, to carry out ticket snatching operation. After the success of the ticket grab, the buyer is charged a commission of 50 yuan to 200 yuan respectively. In less than a year, Liu has sold 3,749 train tickets with a face value of more than 1.2 million yuan, making a profit of more than 310,000 yuan.
Public prosecutors believe that liu jinfu multi-account login, uninterrupted ticket snatching behavior, violated the state's order to train ticket management, undermine other people's fair right to purchase tickets, increased the 12306 website burden, is a legal crackdown on ticket reselling behavior. However, many lawyers and netizens have avenged liu jinfu, although he has registered hundreds of accounts to make a profit, but in how, this is similar to one-on-one purchase service, is an ordinary civil agency behavior, and the past cattle ticket is essentially different.
Even in the past, the law has not dealt a one-sided blow. Some scalpers, for example, make money entirely out of physical strength, line up others to buy tickets, or brush them overnight in front of a computer. They are actually to help those who are not skilled in ticket snatching skills, or do not have time to grab tickets to provide targeted services, is to rely on their own physical strength and time to work, after the completion of a certain commission as a reward. Whether from the legal theory, or from the common sense of ordinary people, such a service, is to meet the existing purchase of tickets under the system derived from the purchase of the demand, purely belong to your feelings I wish the ordinary market trading behavior, the order of the purchase of tickets cannot be harmed, and naturally will not become the object of legal investigation.
What really needs to be hit is this group of people. They colluded with members of the railway system, or through other improper means, took up a large number of other people's hard-to-buy ticket resources, hoarded and sold at high prices. As a result, many people are unable to buy tickets through public, formal channels, and have to resort to scalpers and endure their mutilations and deprivations – a form of scalpers that many years ago were reviled for and sold tickets that the law should have focused on.
In recent years, the implementation of the real-name system of ticket purchase, coupled with the increasing perfection of the 12306 website, has basically put an end to this kind of hoarding and reselling to earn the difference. In this case, even if Liu Jinfu is capable of obtaining tickets in a variety of ways, he must strictly abide by the procedures of buying tickets under the real name system, first of all, accept the entrustment of passengers in duplicate, enter the other party's ID number, and compete with others as an ordinary passenger - there is no control over the source of tickets, no hoarding of tickets, no unacceptable huge profits and price differentials, no exploitation of privileged advantages to plunder public resources, no seemingly harmful to the social and price order, and no difference from the past act of buying tickets on behalf of people by means of physical and legal technology. Is it because he has registered more than 900 accounts, bulk to help people get tickets, involving a relatively large amount of money, he will be \"resell\" the hat to hit?
Of course, it is not that Liu Jinfu's behavior must be encouraged. To be sure, his ticket-snatching service can objectively lead to unfairness for other ticket buyers, after all, not everyone is willing to spend dozens of hours a day brushing the screen or deliberately delve into ticket-snatching techniques to ensure success. Compared with Liu Jinfu's \"old professional \", ordinary people appear weak and passive, and the opportunity to buy tickets is thus denied.
However, the difference between the competitive strength of this kind of ticket purchase, and the past accumulation of strange, the harm of buying and reselling behavior, obviously not in the same order of magnitude, blindly relying on the law to strictly control, is rather harsh and inhuman, has the suspicion of \"cannon mosquitoes \", not in line with the spirit of modesty in criminal law. Step back, if the act of making the difference as a crime, then the same as the operation of liu jinfu, the major platforms to pay for the \"damage\" is not better? If liu jinfu's limited buying operations are to be dealt with by law, then the enterprise's larger scale, larger number, more technical advantages, and even higher fees for ticket snatching operations, is not more severe punishment?
Faced with the interference of various kinds of ticket snatching software introduced by enterprises,12306 parties responded that in order to protect the rights and interests of users, they have technically blocked a number of ticket snatching software channels. In the same way, to Liu Jinfu such a professional individual ticket snatchers, can also be technically guarded against, rather than the frequent use of criminal liability, let the parties bear too serious a price?
Liu jinfu's experience is not isolated. In 2019, Sun Changlong, a Heilongjiang native, was also sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, for helping people earn the difference. Further forward, in 2013, a young married couple in foshan were detained by local police on suspicion of reselling tickets for a 10-yuan service charge for helping migrant workers who could not book tickets online.
On the one hand, the law does not completely prohibit the train ticket of the individual paid agent, on the other hand, the reality of the individual's purchase of tickets is frequently legalized. Many generations of buyers were caught unaware of their transgressions, while onlookers shook their heads again and again. If the practice of a judicial operation, from the fundamental lack of good legal support, but also clearly contrary to the conventional understanding of ordinary people, it should be a good reflection, at least a clear and unified, all parties can accept, the determination of the conduct of the vote, do not let such unthinkable judgments hit the hearts of the people again and again?