近日,江西南昌鐵路運輸法院公開審理了一起倒賣車票案件。被告人劉金福因通過搶票軟件、替實際購票者搶票,被控倒賣車票罪。法院判處其有期徒刑一年六個月,并處罰金124萬元。此案引發網絡熱議。

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.

據報道,兩年前,劉金福在12306網站實名注冊賬號935個,進行搶票操作。搶票成功后,向購票人分別收取50元到200元不等的傭金。在不到一年的時間里,劉金福先后倒賣火車票3749張,票面數額120多萬元,獲利31萬多元。

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.

公訴方認為,劉金福多賬號登錄、不間斷進行搶票行為,侵害了國家對火車票的管理秩序,破壞他人的公平購票權,增加了12306網站負擔,是法律打擊的倒賣車票行為。但很多律師和網友卻替劉金富喊冤,雖然他注冊了數百個賬號,以搶票盈利謀生,但怎么看,這都類似于一對一的代購服務,是一種普通的民事代理行為,與過去的黃牛倒票有著本質性的不同。

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.

就算是過去的黃牛,法律也不是一邊倒地予以打擊。比如有些黃牛,完全靠體力掙錢,或是幫別人排隊買票,或是在電腦面前夜以繼日地刷票。他們其實是幫那些搶票技巧不熟練、或沒有時間搶票的人提供針對性的服務,是靠自己的體力和時間付出勞動,事成后從中收取一定的傭金作為報酬。無論是從法理上,還是從普通人的常識推斷上,這樣的服務,是為了滿足現有購票制度下衍生的代買需求,純粹屬于你情我愿的普通市場交易行為,對購票秩序構不成傷害,也自然不會成為法律追究的對象。

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.

真正需要打擊的是這樣一群人。他們與鐵路系統內部人員勾結,或是通過其他不正當的途徑,占據了大量其他人難以買到的車票資源,囤積起來,以高價賣出去。這樣一來,很多人無法通過公共的、正式的渠道買到車票,只能求助于黃牛,忍受他們的宰割和剝奪——這便是多年前讓眾人厲聲痛斥的黃牛之痛,也是法律理應重點打擊的倒賣車票行為。

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.

近年來,實名制購票制度的實施,加上12306網站的日益完善,已經基本上從技術上杜絕了這種囤票倒賣賺差價的行為。本案中,劉金?v使再有能耐,搶票手段五花八門,也必須嚴格遵從實名制的購票程序,先是一對一式地接受乘客的委托,輸入對方的身份證號,以一名普通旅客身份去和其他人展開刷票競爭——這中間沒有控制票源、沒有囤票、沒有出現讓人難以接受的暴利和差價、也沒有利用特權優勢掠奪公共資源,看上去也沒有危害社會和價格秩序的后果,同過去那種靠體力和合法技術手段代人買票的行為沒有區別,何來違法一說?難道就因為他注冊了900多個賬號,批量幫人搶票,涉及的金額比較大,就要給他扣上“倒賣”的帽子予以打擊?

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?

當然,也不是說劉金富的行為就一定值得鼓勵。平心而論,他從事的搶票服務,客觀上會導致對其他購票者的不公,畢竟不是誰都愿意每天花數十個小時刷屏點擊,或者刻意鉆研搶票技巧,來確保搶票的成功。相較于劉金福的“老成專業”,普通人顯得弱勢被動,購票機會因而被剝奪。

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.

但這種購票競爭力上的強弱之別,同過去囤積居奇、倒買倒賣行為的危害,顯然不在一個量級上,一味靠法律嚴加管束,未免顯得苛刻且不近人情,有“大炮打蚊子”之嫌,不符合刑法的謙抑精神。退一步說,如果硬要把搶票賺差價的行為視作一種違法犯罪的話,那么與劉金福操作如出一轍的、各大搶票平臺的付費搶票行為的“破壞力”豈不是更勝一籌?如果劉金福有限的代買操作都要被法辦的話,那企業的更大規模、更大數量、更具技術優勢、甚至收費更高的搶票操作,豈不是更要從重從嚴處罰?

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?

據媒體報道,劉金福曾實名舉報了攜程網、飛豬網、高鐵管家等搶票軟件,公安機關回復是查無實據。這就讓人納悶,為何企業的搶票行為就被默認為一種商業服務,游離在法律的監管之外,而個人就要面臨司法處罰,遭遇牢獄之災呢?這種對企業和個人的顯而易見的區別對待,豈不是對公平的更大傷害,給人一種欺軟怕硬的觀感?這豈不是更容易引發普通人的不滿和被剝奪感?

面對企業推出的各類搶票軟件的干擾,12306方面回應說,為了保障用戶權益,他們已經從技術上屏蔽了多個搶票軟件渠道。同理,對劉金福這樣的專業個體搶票者,是不是也可以從技術上加以防范,而不是動輒使用刑責,讓當事人承受過于嚴重的代價呢?

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?

劉金福的遭遇并非孤例。2019年,黑龍江人孫長龍也因為幫人搶票賺差價,被判有期徒刑六個月,緩刑一年。再往前推,2013年佛山一對剛結婚的小夫妻,因幫助不會上網訂票的農民工訂火車票,并收取10元手續費,當地警方以涉嫌倒賣車票罪將其刑拘。

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.

一方面,法律上并沒有完全禁止火車票的個人有償代理,而另一方面,現實中,個人的代購搶票行為頻頻被法辦。很多代買者被抓時都不知道自己犯了法,旁觀者則一次又一次地搖頭唏噓。如果一項司法的實務操作,從根本上沒有法理的過硬支持,又明顯違背了普通人的常規理解,是不是應該好好反思一下,至少出臺一個明確統一的、各方都能接受的、關于倒票行為的認定標準,不要讓這類匪夷所思的判決一次次地沖擊人心呢?

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?


歡迎轉載,轉載請注明出處:AG視訊app下載