Why Buying High-Speed Rail Tickets for Consumption-Restricted Debtors Led to Criminal Convictions in China

1. A “travel company” that didn’t do travel

According to a report in Shandong Legal Daily reprinted on the Jinan Railway Transport Court’s website (April 2026), from 2023 Su B invested in a “travel company” that did no travel business at all: its real business was booking restricted tickets for dishonest judgment debtors — advertising online, taking orders via WeChat, using a loophole in booking software to bypass real-name verification, then reselling at a mark-up for a few hundred yuan per order. In August 2023 Su A and Su B jointly set up another travel company, with Su A as legal representative, doing the same business.

In just a few months, the tickets they resold had a face value of more than RMB 200,000, with illegal profits of nearly RMB 100,000. The scheme unravelled when one “customer” was stopped entering a station. The court held that the two had resold tickets for illegal profit with serious circumstances, constituting ticket scalping: Su A was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and fined RMB 230,000; Su B to one year suspended for two years and fined RMB 150,000.

Many people’s first reaction is: “Isn’t it just helping someone buy a ticket?” Between helping someone buy a ticket and scalping tickets lies a legal line.

2. What separates “buying on someone’s behalf” from “scalping”

To be clear: buying tickets at face value for relatives or friends without extra charge is not prohibited. Problems usually arise in three places:

• Mark-up: selling above face value (here, “several hundred yuan above face value”) — high-price or disguised mark-up resale is exactly what the law targets;
• Scale and profit: doing it repeatedly, in bulk, as a business for fees or commissions;
• Customers: serving judgment debtors subject to court consumption restrictions.

Article 227(2) of the Criminal Law provides: “Whoever resells train or ship tickets, where the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to up to three years’ imprisonment, criminal detention or public surveillance, and/or a fine of one to five times the value of the tickets.”

What counts as “serious” is set out in Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Ticket Scalping Cases (法释〔1999〕17号): “Reselling train tickets, seat or berth numbers or ticket booking vouchers at high or disguised high prices, where the face value is RMB 5,000 or more or the illegal profit RMB 2,000 or more, constitutes ‘serious circumstances’ under Article 227(2).” In this case, with a face value over RMB 200,000 and profit near RMB 100,000, the line was far exceeded.

3. Why this kind of “help” is treated as a crime

The presiding judge put it bluntly: “This isn’t ordinary buying on someone’s behalf; it is disguised mark-up resale, with serious circumstances.” In the court’s view, buying tickets for people the court has expressly restricted from high consumption not only disrupts railway ticketing but directly challenges judicial authority and the credit system.

As for method, investigators said the defendants used a loophole in the 12306 system to bypass real-name checks, then resold tickets to dishonest debtors at several hundred yuan above face value. This “buy low, sell high” is essentially no different from traditional scalpers — they just moved the stall from the station to the WeChat chat window.

Nor is the offence limited to street scalpers. A case in the People’s Court Case Database, Wang Mouqiang and Wang Mou, ticket scalping (Database No. 2024-03-1-172-001; (2021) Hei 71 Xing Zhong No. 11, Harbin Railway Transport Intermediate Court), holds that using ticket-grabbing software to refresh continuously, submitting repeated orders and reselling at a mark-up in large numbers and amounts is ticket scalping. In a similar case disclosed by Shanghai Baoshan prosecutors in 2021, Dong, who ran a ticket agency issuing tickets for consumption-restricted people, was also prosecuted for ticket scalping — issuing tickets is within reach of the criminal law too.

4. What travel does a consumption restriction actually limit?

Being consumption-restricted doesn’t mean you can’t travel. Article 3(1) of the Supreme People’s Court Several Provisions on Restricting High Consumption and Related Consumption by Judgment Debtors provides that an individual debtor subject to restrictions may not engage in high consumption or consumption not necessary for life and work, including, directly relevant to travel:

• “(1) choosing aircraft, soft-sleeper berths on trains, or second-class or higher cabins on ships when using transport”;
• “(9) all seats on G-series bullet trains, first-class or higher seats on other bullet trains, and other consumption not necessary for life and work.”

In other words, ordinary trains and second-class seats on other bullet trains remain available. The restriction targets “high consumption”, not freedom of movement as a whole.

5. Is the debtor who buys the ticket at risk too?

Yes — and many people underestimate this.

• Article 11 of the Provisions states: “A debtor’s consumption in violation of a consumption restriction order constitutes refusal to perform an effective judgment or ruling of the people’s court; once verified, the debtor shall be detained or fined under Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law; where serious and constituting a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued.” (Note: Article 111 refers to the 2015 text; after the 2021 and 2023 amendments the corresponding provision is Article 114(1)(6) — a renumbering, not a substantive change.)
• Article 313 of the Criminal Law: “Whoever is able to enforce a judgment or ruling of a people’s court but refuses to do so, where the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to up to three years’ imprisonment, criminal detention or a fine; where especially serious, to three to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine.”
• Article 3 of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Cases of Refusing to Enforce Judgments and Rulings (法释〔2024〕13号) lists “refusing to report or falsely reporting property, violating a consumption restriction order or other refusal to enforce, and continuing to refuse after fines, detention or other compulsory measures” as one of the “other serious circumstances of refusing to enforce despite ability” in the NPC Standing Committee’s interpretation of Article 313.

Note that a single violation of a consumption restriction order does not necessarily constitute the crime of refusing to enforce; whether it does depends on the elements of Article 313 and the specific situations in Article 3 of the interpretation (this paragraph is my analysis, not statutory text). Investigators also mentioned that railway systems and the court enforcement disclosure platform now share data: once identity verification triggers an alert, you not only can’t enter the station but may be handed over to the enforcing court.

6. If you genuinely need to take high-speed rail urgently, what is the right route?

The law doesn’t shut out those with genuine need. Article 8 of the Provisions: “A restricted debtor who needs to engage in consumption prohibited by these Provisions for necessary living or business reasons shall apply to the people’s court and may do so only after approval.”

In practice, you submit a written application to the enforcing court explaining the reason (such as visiting a critically ill relative or urgent business), the time and route, with supporting evidence; after the court approves, you buy the ticket and travel. In addition, Article 9 provides that during the restriction period, the court may lift the order if the debtor provides genuinely effective security or the creditor agrees.

The “fee” paid to a ticket agent is often no cheaper than going through an application — and it buys administrative penalties and even criminal risk along with the ticket.

7. Misconceptions to clear up

• Myth 1: “I charge an errand fee, not for the ticket.” What the fee is called doesn’t change its nature; what matters is mark-up resale and whether the amounts reach “serious circumstances”.
• Myth 2: “Use another channel or a passport to get round it.” Bypassing real-name verification was itself the criminal method in this case; this article does not discuss methods and is not advice of any kind.
• Myth 3: “I have a business licence; I run a travel business.” A licence doesn’t make the business lawful. Scalping under the banner of travel is still scalping, and legal representatives and shareholders often bear heavier responsibility — Su A was held liable precisely as legal representative.
• Myth 4: “I’m helping a friend, not doing business.” Whether it is a “business activity” depends on repetition, scale, amounts and profit motive, not on how close the parties are.

8. Final thoughts

One high-speed rail ticket involves three parties: the scalper earning fees, the debtor trying to evade restrictions, and the creditor still waiting to be paid. The first two may both face legal consequences. For debtors, the real ways out are two: perform, settle, or report property truthfully and deal with debts lawfully; and, where genuinely necessary, apply through the proper procedure for temporary relief from the restriction order. For creditors, the court can be asked to trace and control assets and, where conditions are met, to pursue liability for refusal to enforce.

If you or your family are involved in dishonest-debtor listings, consumption restrictions or enforcement cases, or face criminal risk from ticket scalping or refusal to enforce, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 帮「限高」的人代购高铁票，为什么会判刑？——「代购」与「倒卖」只差一步. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.