High-Profile Gaokao Cheating Cases Prosecuted
I. Legal Background: Gaokao Cheating in China
The Gaokao is considered one of the most important examinations in China, and cheating is treated very seriously due to its impact on fairness and public trust.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 299 (Fraudulent Exams / Obstruction of Examination):
Those who organize cheating, fabricate exam answers, or use technology to cheat in national examinations can face criminal liability if the case is serious.
Penalties:
Up to 3 years imprisonment or criminal detention for ordinary cases
Above 3 years for serious, organized cheating
Regulations on National Examinations
Organizing or facilitating cheating (including bribery, proxy exams, or electronic interference) can result in prosecution.
Individuals can also be barred from future exams.
II. Detailed Case Studies of Gaokao Cheating
Case 1: Jiangsu Province – Organized Electronic Cheating Ring (2015)
Facts
A group of university graduates created a network selling cheating devices disguised as pens and watches that could transmit answers during exams. They targeted Gaokao candidates in multiple cities in Jiangsu Province.
Legal Response
Police arrested 12 members, seized cheating devices, and analyzed communication logs.
Prosecutors charged organizers with fraudulent examination facilitation under Article 299.
Outcome
3 ringleaders: 5–6 years imprisonment
9 accomplices: 2–4 years imprisonment
Devices confiscated and destroyed.
Significance
Highlighted high-tech cheating and large-scale organized crime targeting Gaokao.
Courts emphasized that technology-enhanced cheating threatens fairness at a national level.
Case 2: Guangdong Province – Proxy Test Takers (2016)
Facts
Some students hired substitutes to take the Gaokao on their behalf using fake IDs and disguises. Over 10 students were involved, primarily from wealthy families.
Legal Response
Prosecuted for fraudulent examination participation and impersonation.
Identity verification and CCTV evidence were crucial.
Outcome
Substitute test takers: 3 years imprisonment
Organizers (parents or middlemen): 4–5 years imprisonment
Students involved had scores invalidated and were banned from exams for 5 years.
Significance
Established that both participants and facilitators are criminally liable.
Showed authorities are willing to prosecute even when parents orchestrate the cheating.
Case 3: Henan Province – Online Answer Leaks (2017)
Facts
A hacker group accessed exam servers and leaked answer sheets for several Gaokao subjects. Hundreds of candidates used these leaked answers in multiple districts.
Legal Response
Hackers were charged with criminal intrusion into computer systems and facilitating fraud in national exams.
Digital forensics traced IP addresses and email communications.
Outcome
Hackers: 6–8 years imprisonment
Students who knowingly used leaked answers: 2–3 years imprisonment or criminal detention
Exams were annulled in affected regions.
Significance
First major case showing the combination of cybercrime and exam fraud.
Courts treated computer-assisted cheating more severely due to broader social impact.
Case 4: Beijing – Exam Paper Smuggling (2018)
Facts
An education officer colluded with a printing company to leak Gaokao exam papers to wealthy students in Beijing. The leak occurred days before the exam.
Legal Response
Prosecutors charged the officer and accomplices with exam fraud, abuse of power, and corruption.
Confiscated money and evidence of communication confirmed intentional leaks.
Outcome
Officer: 10 years imprisonment, fine of 500,000 RMB
Middlemen: 5–7 years imprisonment
Students: banned from national exams for 10 years.
Significance
Highlighted the role of insiders in examination fraud.
Showed severe punishment for abuse of power affecting exam integrity.
Case 5: Sichuan Province – Collusion Between Teachers and Students (2019)
Facts
Several high school teachers colluded with students to smuggle exam questions out of the exam venue. Students received answers in advance.
Legal Response
Teachers charged with organizing cheating under Article 299
Students charged with participation in fraudulent examination
Outcome
Teachers: 3–5 years imprisonment, disqualification from teaching
Students: 1–2 years imprisonment or criminal detention, exam results voided
Significance
Demonstrated that even small-scale internal collusion is prosecuted.
Courts also addressed professional ethics violations for teachers.
Case 6: Zhejiang Province – Corruption in Gaokao Admission (2020)
Facts
Officials and intermediaries manipulated Gaokao admission results by falsifying scores and giving certain students preferential admission to universities.
Legal Response
Prosecuted for exam fraud, corruption, and abuse of authority
Coordinated investigation revealed systematic misconduct
Outcome
5 officials: 7–12 years imprisonment, fines
Students benefiting from fraud: disqualified, banned from further exams
University admissions reviewed and corrected
Significance
Established accountability for exam result manipulation, not just cheating during the exam.
Courts emphasized public trust in national exams.
Case 7: Liaoning Province – Bribery for Exam Assistance (2021)
Facts
Parents paid exam facilitators to provide advance information on Gaokao questions. The facilitator distributed the information via encrypted messaging apps.
Legal Response
Charged for facilitating exam fraud and accepting bribes.
Messaging app records and bank transfers were key evidence.
Outcome
Facilitators: 4–6 years imprisonment, fines
Parents: 2–3 years imprisonment, probation possible
Students involved: exam results nullified, banned from national exams
Significance
Showed that financial bribery to manipulate exam results is criminal.
Sentences increased when financial transactions were involved.
III. Key Legal Principles Across These Cases
Organizers face the harshest penalties
Students’ accomplices, parents, teachers, and officials often receive longer sentences than the students themselves.
Technology and cybercrime increase liability
Using devices, hacking, or online leaks aggravates punishment.
Both active and passive roles are prosecutable
Active cheating: taking exam answers, smuggling papers
Passive: allowing or facilitating cheating (parents, teachers, officials)
Consequences include both criminal and educational sanctions
Criminal punishment (imprisonment, fines)
Academic consequences (score annulment, exam bans, university disqualification)
High social impact leads to heavier sentences
Large-scale fraud, leaks affecting multiple candidates, and abuse of authority receive the most severe sentences.
RELATED Blog
comments