Is it legal to snatch concert tickets on behalf of others? "Scalpers" acting as agents can easily lead to these two types of risks. scalpers | concerts | tickets

#Two consecutive seat tickets for a certain concert are priced at 150000 yuan by scalpers#

#30 assistants don't even have concert tickets#

#A certain group's concert ticket agent grabs prices#

……

With the recovery of the performance market

Various celebrity concerts followed one after another

Various concerts and concerts are hard to come by with just one ticket

As a result

The problem of rampant scalpers with strong public feedback

To resist the behavior of scalpers

Ticketing platforms are launching one after another

Measures such as real name ticket purchase and real name entry

But the extremely high premium "scalpers" on second-hand trading platforms

Still common and not uncommon

There are even scalpers who provide services to snatch concert tickets on behalf of others

When the traditional sense of "scalper scalpers" has a living space

After continuous compression

Some groups under the banner of "proxy filming" and "proxy grabbing"

Entering the performance ticketing market

How to identify and prevent such behavior?

We have invited

Tongzhou District People's Court of Beijing

Third level senior judge Li Shigang

Let me explain and reason for everyone

Q: How to determine whether it is legal to "snatch" commercial performance tickets on behalf of others??

Answer: "Agency buying" can be literally understood as "an individual or a professional company or organization that replaces consumers to buy commercial performance tickets, forming a principal-agent relationship.". The legality of "proxy grabbing" commercial performance tickets should be strictly defined in accordance with legal provisions.

Article 161 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "civil subjects may carry out civil legal acts through agents", therefore consumers have the right to entrust "robbery". So to determine whether the act of proxy robbery is legal, it is necessary to determine whether the civil legal act of agency formed by both parties is effective.

The conditions for the validity of civil legal acts are clearly stipulated in Article 143 of the Civil Code: firstly, the actor has corresponding civil capacity; Secondly, the expression of intention is genuine; Thirdly, it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and does not violate public order and good customs. Meanwhile, Article 153 of the Civil Code also stipulates that "civil legal acts that violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations shall be invalid, except where such mandatory provisions do not render such civil legal acts invalid."

Therefore, the key to judging the legality of "proxy robbery" behavior lies in whether this behavior violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Based on practical experience, I believe it can be judged by whether it disrupts the two orders.

One is the order of ticket purchase. When engaging in "proxy grabbing" behavior, whether online or offline, the normal order of ticket purchase cannot be disrupted. Taking the online "proxy buying" with a higher proportion and wider application as an example, if the order recipient "manually" grabs tickets like ordinary consumers, then there is no problem in terms of ticket purchasing order. But if the order recipient uses illegal technical means, they are suspected of committing illegal crimes. For example, Chen, a "technical scalper," conveniently used his "web crawler" software to help "customers" grab tickets in 0 seconds on a certain ticketing platform, accumulating illegal profits of more than 120000 yuan, seriously disrupting the normal ticketing order. In the end, Chen was sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for four years, and fined RMB 20000 for providing intrusion and illegal control of computer information system programs and tools.

Another is market order. If the person taking the order purchases commercial performance tickets by following the ticket purchase order and does not sell the tickets to the principal at a price higher than the ticket price, only charging a reasonable labor fee, it can be considered as a normal commission contract behavior. If the person who accepts the order is mainly profiting from the "ticket price difference" and sells the "proxy snatched" tickets to the principal at a price several times or even dozens of times higher than the face value, it is suspected of violating Article 52 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China and may be punished with fines, detention, and other penalties; Those whose circumstances seriously disrupt market order may also be suspected of illegal business operations.

Based on the above analysis, we can simply understand that when consumers and order recipients reach an "agency grabbing" agreement that does not interfere with ticket sales order and market order, and does not violate other prohibitive provisions of laws and regulations, it is generally considered a legal commission relationship.

Q: What are the risks of "scalpers" acting as agents?

Answer: Such "proxy grabbing" behavior without formal platform constraints and guarantees can easily lead to two types of legal risks.

One is the risk of personal information leakage. In order to meet the requirement of "strong real name" for performance tickets, the order receiver will ask for a large amount of personal information, including ID number, mobile phone number and even bank card number. In the absence of platform supervision, such personal information can easily be "packaged" for sale or shared among "scalper" groups. A consumer once sent their personal information to a scalper, requesting to "snatch" tickets for a popular concert. They immediately received a phone call claiming to offer a more favorable "snatch" service. The speed of information leakage is evident.

The second risk is that money and tickets are both empty. With the increasingly strict regulation, the number of tickets that scalpers can truly control is gradually decreasing, and many scalpers have started the idea of "using empty hands to lure white wolves". They pretended to provide "robbery on behalf" services on the Internet platform to defraud the victims of the deposit and ticket payments, and then "evaporated". For example, Zhao once used this method to defraud dozens of victims of more than 350000 yuan within two years. He was ultimately sentenced to four years in prison and fined 40000 yuan for the crime of fraud.

Therefore, it is reminded that consumers must be cautious in their consumption and not easily trust products or tickets that are lower than the market price to avoid being deceived. When purchasing tickets, it is important to choose legitimate channels and be vigilant. It is important to understand the fraudulent methods of scalpers and avoid being deceived by their tricks.

Q: What should I do if I don't get a ticket or receive a refund by charging a "proxy fee"?

Answer: In fact, this kind of situation is similar to the situation where WeChat merchants on WeChat Moments do not refund money or ship goods. It is a difficult after-sales problem that online platforms can easily face after the popularization of peer-to-peer transactions. Our trial team has summarized the "three no's" mnemonic and shared it with consumers who have a need to protect their rights.

One is to stabilize the scalpers and not be impatient. Many consumers who encounter such behavior are often very angry, fiercely arguing with scalpers, and even venting their emotions through online platforms such as blacklisting and deletion. Everyone's emotions can be understood, but the information between the two parties in online transactions is unequal, and scalpers are more likely to have access to a lot of our information, which further angers them and is not a wise choice. Deleting contact information also cuts off the few contact information between the buyer and seller, and may result in the loss of evidence during rights protection, which is not conducive to the subsequent development of rights protection. Therefore, it is recommended to remain rational, calmly defend rights, and avoid ineffective disputes after recognizing the scam.

The second is to promptly report to the police without hesitation. When rights and interests are infringed upon, seeking help from the public security department is one of the most effective ways. After reporting to the police, everyone can save evidence more comprehensively with the help of the public security department and prevent further fraud. At the same time, police officers have richer experience in handling cases and more advanced methods for investigating online fraud. If they meet the standards for filing criminal cases, they can also cooperate with the public security organs in the process of handling cases and try to recover losses as much as possible.

Thirdly, we will not give up on protecting diverse rights. As a type of contract dispute, consumers can file a civil lawsuit with the court regarding the failure of the recipient to fulfill their contractual obligations. It should be noted that some parties always believe that filing a lawsuit is a complex matter, but in fact, it is not. Taking our Tongzhou Court as an example, everyone can file a case online, mediate online, and hold a court session online, which has greatly improved the convenience of litigation. Therefore, it is recommended that everyone overcome their fear of difficulties, bravely pick up legal weapons, and protect their legitimate rights and interests through the diverse dispute resolution system of the court.

Finally, I wish everyone all the best

They all got what they wanted

Concert tickets!