這起演唱會舞弊事件發生於中國，因手法離奇且涉及知名歌手張學友與陳奕迅的演唱會，引發社會廣泛關注，也再次暴露大型商業演出在現場管理與內部監督上的漏洞。

根據法院判決與相關調查結果顯示，涉案事件發生在多場大型明星演唱會期間。兩名負責現場安檢與入口管制的保安人員，利用職務之便，私下與無票粉絲勾結，建立一套暗號辨識機制，藉此繞過正常的驗票流程。其中最引人注目的是，他們以「奧特曼貼紙」作為識別暗號，只要粉絲在手機、衣物或隨身物品上展示特定的奧特曼貼紙，便可在進場時被默認為「自己人」，不需出示任何合法門票，即可直接進入場館。

這一手法操作簡單卻極具隱蔽性，外人難以察覺異常。涉案保安在入口處以正常安檢為掩護，對持貼紙者刻意放行，使大量未購票觀眾成功混入場內觀看張學友與陳奕迅等一線歌手的演唱會。經警方與主辦單位事後清查，至少有126名無票觀眾透過這種方式非法入場，對演唱會秩序與票務公平性造成嚴重破壞。

調查顯示，這並非偶發行為，而是一段持續運作的牟利行為。兩名保安透過收取現金或轉帳方式，向無票粉絲索取「進場費」，金額視場次與歌手熱度而定，明顯高於正常門票價格或接近市場黃牛票水準。對部分粉絲而言，這種「走後門」方式不僅省去搶票的時間，也被視為更穩妥的入場途徑，卻在無形中助長了內部腐敗與票務亂象。

事件曝光後，引發演唱會主辦方、場館管理單位及警方的高度重視。警方介入調查後，迅速鎖定涉案保安人員，並掌握其收款紀錄、聊天紀錄與現場監控畫面，證實其利用職務便利非法牟利的事實。案件最終移送法院審理。

法院審理認為，兩名被告身為演唱會安保人員，負有維護現場秩序與票務安全的職責，卻利用職務便利，破壞演出管理制度，非法牟取利益，其行為已構成犯罪。相關行為不僅侵害演唱會主辦方的合法經營權益，也損害已依法購票觀眾的公平權益，並對大型公共活動的安全與秩序造成潛在風險。

最終，法院依法判處兩名保安人員有期徒刑並處罰金，對其非法所得依法追繳。判決結果亦釋放出明確訊號，即對於利用大型文娛活動牟利、破壞票務秩序的內部人員，司法機關將嚴厲追責。從更廣泛的社會層面來看，這起事件反映出在明星演唱會供需極度失衡的背景下，灰色利益鏈條不僅存在於「黃牛」層面，也可能滲透進場館內部。奧特曼貼紙作為暗號的荒誕細節，表面上看似離奇，實際上卻揭示制度監管不到位時，權力與漏洞如何被迅速商品化。

整體而言，這起案件不僅是一宗單純的舞弊犯罪，更對演唱會主辦方與場館管理提出警示：唯有強化內控、科技驗票與責任追溯機制，才能真正保障演出市場的公平性與觀眾權益，避免類似事件再次發生。

This concert fraud case occurred in China and attracted widespread public attention due to its unusual methods and its involvement with concerts by major stars such as Jacky Cheung and Eason Chan. The incident once again exposed serious loopholes in on-site management and internal supervision at large-scale commercial performances.

According to court rulings and investigative findings, the scheme took place during multiple high-profile concerts. Two security guards responsible for entrance checks and access control exploited their positions by colluding with fans who did not have tickets. They devised a covert recognition system to bypass standard ticket verification procedures. Most strikingly, they used “Ultraman stickers” as a secret signal. As long as a fan displayed a specific Ultraman sticker on a mobile phone, clothing, or personal belongings, the guards would treat them as “insiders” and allow them to enter the venue without presenting a valid ticket.

The method was simple yet highly concealed, making irregularities difficult for others to detect. Under the cover of routine security checks, the guards deliberately waved through those carrying the sticker, enabling large numbers of ticketless spectators to slip into concerts by top-tier artists such as Jacky Cheung and Eason Chan. Subsequent reviews by the police and concert organizers confirmed that at least 126 people had entered the venues illegally through this scheme, seriously undermining ticketing fairness and on-site order.

Investigations revealed that this was not an isolated incident but a sustained profit-driven operation. The two guards charged ticketless fans “entry fees” in cash or via electronic transfers, with prices varying depending on the performer and the popularity of the show. In many cases, the fees were comparable to, or even higher than, standard ticket prices or scalper rates. For some fans, this backdoor access eliminated the hassle of competing for tickets and appeared to be a more reliable way to get in, but it also fueled internal corruption and further distorted the concert ticket market.

After the scheme was exposed, concert organizers, venue operators, and law enforcement authorities took the matter seriously. Police investigations quickly identified the guards involved and secured evidence including payment records, chat logs, and surveillance footage, confirming that they had used their positions to illegally profit from the concerts. The case was subsequently brought before the courts.

In its ruling, the court held that the defendants, as security personnel responsible for maintaining order and safeguarding ticketing integrity, had abused their positions for personal gain, seriously disrupting event management systems. Their actions not only infringed upon the legitimate business interests of the concert organizers but also violated the fairness owed to law-abiding, ticket-paying audiences, while posing potential risks to public safety at large-scale events.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the two security guards to fixed-term imprisonment and imposed fines, while ordering the confiscation of their illegal gains. The verdict sent a clear message that individuals who exploit major cultural and entertainment events for personal profit, particularly by abusing internal positions, will face severe legal consequences.

From a broader societal perspective, the case highlights how, amid extreme supply-and-demand imbalances for popular concerts, gray-market profit chains extend beyond scalpers and can penetrate internal venue operations. The seemingly absurd detail of using Ultraman stickers as a secret code, while striking, in fact reveals how authority and loopholes can quickly be commodified when oversight mechanisms are weak.

Overall, the case is not merely an instance of fraud, but a cautionary tale for concert organizers and venue managers. Only by strengthening internal controls, implementing more robust technological ticketing systems, and enhancing accountability can the fairness of the live performance market and the rights of audiences be effectively protected, preventing similar incidents from recurring.