13岁中国女孩盛艾敬（艺名Aijing）在海外出道引发关注。其父母名下的北京索菲思教育科技有限公司累计欠薪345万元，并于2026年8月31日被北京市东城区人民法院立案执行两起案件。1公司由盛艾敬母亲张某持股97%、任执行董事兼经理，父亲盛某川任监事。1在员工欠薪未清偿的情况下，女儿仍有舞蹈培训和海外参赛的高额支出，引发对资金使用合理性的质疑。1
法律专家指出，这一事件的核心是资金来源和法律责任界定。1《最高人民法院关于限制被执行人高消费及有关消费的若干规定》第三条第七项明确禁止的是"子女就读高收费私立学校"，普通课外兴趣班包括舞蹈培训并不在禁止清单内。1然而，法律允许被执行人保留家庭基本生活与必要教育开支，而高额练习生培训、海外参赛、出道包装等费用不属于基本必要教育开支范畴。1律师强调，合法性的核心在于支付主体和资金来源，而非培训本身是否在禁止清单上。1若这些费用由已被限制消费的父母以自有资金支付，该支付行为本身可能构成对限高令的违反。1
A 13-year-old Chinese girl known by the stage name Aijing has drawn public attention following her overseas debut, yet her parents' company has simultaneously been revealed to owe 3.45 million yuan in accumulated employee wages that are now under court enforcement.1
Beijing Sophies Education Technology Co., Ltd., the company involved, was placed under enforcement by the Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court on August 31, 2026, with two cases filed against it.1 The girl's mother, Zhang, holds a 97% stake and serves as executive director and manager, while her father, Sheng Chuanchuan, acts as supervisor.1
According to legal experts, the core issue is not whether the expenditures constitute violations in themselves, but rather the source of funds and whether payments were made by parents who should have been restricted from high consumption under enforcement orders.1 Legal analysis reveals that while the Supreme People's Court's regulations on restricting high consumption by enforcement subjects explicitly prohibit "enrolling children in high-fee private schools," general extracurricular interest classes including dance training do not appear on the prohibited list.1 However, lawyers emphasize that the legality hinges on the paying party and funding source rather than whether a specific activity is enumerated.1 Although law permits enforcement subjects to retain funds for basic family living expenses and necessary education costs, high-cost trainee programs, overseas competitions, and entertainment industry packaging do not qualify as basic necessary educational expenses.1 If the expenses were paid by parents subject to consumption restrictions using their own funds, such payments themselves could constitute violations of the high-consumption restriction order.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。