But the other poster only claimed that this was fraud because it abuses a loophole. So where is the line between a loophole being legal versus being fraud? Or, what is it that makes this fraud besides being a loophole?
Using fake/other identities is squarely in the realm of fraud, not loopholes, if that is what happened.
Edit: The article details that part of the strategy employed was to attempt to get a refund for any flight that ended up not being delayed, which would probably qualify as fraudulent intent (I think? IANAL).
I'm not sure what the exact rule that was abused was, as I'm not familiar with Chinese law. I know that rule of law in China is not as strong as in many other countries, but I'm supposing that for small time stuff like this it's not too bad. I'm presuming that there is some element of the contract that she misrepresented herself on, such as an intent to travel clause or something of that nature. It may not be the case, but that would be an example of a legal theory under which her behavior would be fraudulent. The source article claims that she "... had repeatedly forged materials such as flight delay certificates, fabricated fictitious flight delays, ..." (Google translate output).