During the 30th Busan International Film Festival (BIFF) in 2025, online scams around sold‑out screenings surfaced.
Victims usually met sellers in open chatrooms and public message boards on major portals.
After wiring money, many people found the seller gone and their funds lost; police are investigating.
Observers repeatedly urge the public to use official vendors or arrange in‑person transfers.
Vanished Tickets, Lingering Doubt — What the BIFF Ticket Scam Reveals
Case summary
The incident spread quickly.
During the 30th BIFF in 2025, posts offering transfers of sold‑out screening tickets appeared in public online chatrooms and bulletin boards.
Sellers asked for extra fees and pushed bank transfers; once payment arrived, they cut contact and disappeared.
Reported losses were commonly around 100,000–140,000 won (roughly $75–$100), and the number of victims kept rising.
However, scarcity and sellouts create the conditions for fraud.
The festival’s popularity and rapid sellouts encouraged scalping and gave fraudsters openings. In addition, a system that lets someone enter with booking details alone (without strict ID checks) created a structural weakness for criminals to exploit.
Why it happened
Demand outstripped supply.
BIFF has grown into one of Asia’s largest film festivals, and demand for premiere screenings, director Q&As (a live question‑and‑answer session), and special events is intense.
In particular, screenings with a high‑profile actor or director or events that include a live Q&A often sell out within minutes.
When official channels do not meet demand, disappointed viewers turn to informal channels, where scalping and scams can mix.
Meanwhile, anonymity in public chatrooms and portal boards makes trading easy but trust flimsy.
Screenshots or partial booking numbers are not reliable proof that a ticket will work, and weak identity checks at entry make it easier for scammers to succeed.
Tactics and patterns of loss
The scheme is simple but deliberate.
Fraudsters post that a popular screening is sold out and that they can transfer tickets for a fee.
They build trust with what look like booking screenshots or partial reservation numbers, then ask for payment by bank transfer. After the money clears, the seller blocks the buyer or vanishes from the chat.
Victims often regret paying in haste; some find they must rework household budgets to make up the loss.
On the whole, these incidents reopen public anxiety about online peer‑to‑peer trades and personal money management.
Police response
Law enforcement has opened inquiries.
Detectives, including teams from the Haeundae police station, are tracing bank accounts and considering search warrants when needed. They are collecting victim statements to map the scope and identify possible accomplices.
However, because transfers often use anonymous or transient accounts, tracing inbound payments is complex. When the amounts involved are relatively small, investigators must weigh resource allocation against expected legal gains.
Therefore, better coordination between police, prosecutors, and banks — and faster procedures to freeze suspicious accounts — is being called for.
Argument: Strong enforcement is needed
Some call for strict measures.
Supporters of tougher action say legal penalties, prevention education, and operational safeguards must work together to stop fraud.
First, they want BIFF and similar events to strengthen ID checks and add extra authentication at booking. Second, they propose public campaigns to promote official vendors and warn about online risks. Third, they urge swift account tracing by police and vigorous prosecution to deter copycat crimes.
From this view, system upgrades are essential to stop repeat offenses.
For example, a real‑time QR code authentication system or an official transfer platform could reduce illegal transactions. Organizers could also block suspicious seller accounts and publish clear response manuals for suspected fraud.
Moreover, supporters suggest legal and administrative steps to make early account freezes and refunds easier, through partnerships with banks. While these measures raise short‑term operational costs, proponents argue they will restore trust and protect audiences over time.
"Only official channels protect the audience" — summary of a victim interview
Counterpoint: Limits and audience choices
Reality is more complicated.
Critics say it’s hard to treat all resale activity as purely criminal. When demand far exceeds supply, not every ticket transaction outside official channels is malicious.
On the other hand, some viewers turn to unofficial resales because they could not secure the seats they wanted through official sales. Visitors from other cities or countries may miss a narrow booking window because of time zones or slow networks, and then try to buy a ticket on site — which can expose them to scalpers and scams.
Also, strict regulation is not a perfect cure.
Excessive ID checks can invade privacy (that means people’s private information) and make booking harder for ordinary attendees. Some people report that extra verification steps have caused purchase failures or higher fees.
Therefore, critics suggest practical reforms: low‑cost verified broker platforms, an official resale marketplace, or temporary seat releases to ease shortages. They argue that supply‑side fixes and better distribution are as important as punishment for fraud.
The key point across both views is that solutions must balance accessibility, festival operations, and crime prevention — not simply impose one‑size‑fits‑all rules.
Practical prevention and recommendations
There are steps anyone can take.
To reduce risk, use official vendors first; when you must deal with another person, meet face to face and avoid prepayments to suspicious accounts. Keep records of transactions and track spending; if you suspect fraud, contact your bank and the police immediately.
Festival organizers and platforms should build safer resale options.
Consider an official resale feature, stronger ID checks on transfers, or temporary authentication tokens. At the same time, design choices must protect convenience and personal data (privacy) so ordinary users are not discouraged.
Wider meaning and next steps
The problem goes beyond small sums.
Ticket scams undermine trust in cultural events and can chill attendance if audiences fear losing money. So, short‑term arrests are necessary but not sufficient; organizers need medium‑ and long‑term plans to rebuild confidence.
Those plans should rest on four pillars: technical fixes, legal and regulatory updates, education and public campaigns, and public‑private cooperation.
Examples include automated monitoring of online listings, rapid blocking of suspicious accounts, simplified victim relief procedures, and targeted safety education for attendees.
Summary and proposals
The answer is balance.
Both strong enforcement and realistic system improvements are needed to reduce opportunities for fraud. At the same time, policies that narrow the gap between demand and supply will help audiences access culture fairly.
Safe transactions require shared responsibility.
Festival organizers, platform operators, banks, law enforcement, and audiences must all cooperate for lasting solutions.
Conclusion
The takeaway is clear.
The BIFF ticket scams resulted from a mix of excess demand, weak resale controls, and online anonymity. Law enforcement, technical upgrades, and public education should move forward together to reduce harm.
What safety measure do you prioritize when buying festival tickets?
Do you favor official sellers first, or would you support regulated resale platforms that let verified users transfer tickets safely?
