In virtual money crime, how to accurately distinguish between aiding and abetting crime and concealing crime?

Introduction

With the rapid expansion of virtual currency globally, the legal issues surrounding it have become increasingly complex, especially in criminal justice practice. The crimes of assisting information network criminal activities (referred to as “aiding crime”) and concealing or disguising criminal proceeds and the crime of laundering criminal proceeds (referred to as “concealment crime”) are two frequently applied charges within the chain of virtual currency crimes, often intersecting and confusing each other in terms of facts and legal application.

This confusion not only affects the judicial authorities’ accurate determination of cases, but also directly relates to the severity of the sentencing of the defendant—although both crimes are important tools for the criminal law to combat cybercrime and money laundering, they differ significantly in terms of subjective intent, means of conduct, and sentencing range.

This article will conduct an in-depth exploration of how to accurately distinguish between aiding and abetting crimes and concealing crimes in virtual currency offenses through case analysis, legal reasoning, and practical experience, providing practical references for relevant practitioners.

1. Case Introduction

Let’s first look at a practical case to see the difference between the court’s judgment on crimes related to cryptocurrency assistance and concealment. In the case of Chen Si and others’ concealment in the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiaozuo City, Henan Province ((2022) Yu 08 Criminal Final No. 50), the basic facts of the case are as follows:

In December 2020, Li Ganggang and others organized Chen Si and others to use bank cards to transfer illegal criminal proceeds, knowing that others needed bank cards for this purpose. Chen Si, aware that Li Ganggang and others were using bank cards to transfer illegal criminal proceeds, provided his real-name Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and Postal Savings Bank cards to participate in the transfers (some of which were transferred after purchasing virtual currencies), and kept accounts and reconciliations through online chat groups. According to the statistics of the investigative authorities, the three bank cards provided by Chen Si transferred over 147,000 yuan in telecom fraud funds.

In February 2021, Li Gang and others were arrested by the public security authorities. However, Chen Si and others continued to organize others to use bank cards to transfer funds from criminal proceeds for others, or to transfer funds by purchasing virtual currencies, with an amount involved exceeding 441,000 yuan.

The first-instance court found Chen Si guilty of concealment crimes, sentencing him to four years in prison and imposing a fine of 20,000 yuan.

However, Chen Si and his defense lawyer believe that the first-instance court made an error in characterizing the case, and that it should constitute a lesser offense of aiding and abetting rather than a more serious offense of concealment. However, the second-instance court did not support the defendant and his lawyer’s viewpoint, ultimately rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

This case illustrates well the common points of contention among the prosecution, defense, and court when transferring illegal proceeds from upstream criminal activities through virtual currency, specifically regarding the applicability of the crime of assisting others and the crime of concealment.

II. The Scope of Application of Assisting and Concealing in Cryptocurrency Criminal Cases

In criminal cases within the cryptocurrency sphere, the boundaries of the crimes of assisting in crime and concealing crime are usually closely related to the role positioning of the actor, the degree of subjective understanding, and the consequences of the actions. Although both crimes require the actor to be “aware,” a careful examination reveals that the applicable scenarios for the two crimes actually have significant differences.

(1) Typical application scenarios of aiding and abetting crimes

The crime of assisting others refers to the act of knowingly providing technical support, promotion, payment settlement, network storage, communication transmission, and other assistance to others who use information networks to commit crimes. In the cryptocurrency world, common acts of assisting crimes include:

1. Assist scam gangs in collecting and transferring coins;

2. Knowing it is “black U” or dirty money and still providing address transfer services;

3. Provide a virtual currency wallet address for “running scores” or transfer.

The key point of this crime lies in the “assistance” behavior that directly facilitates information network crimes, without the need to aim for profit as the ultimate goal.

(2) Typical Application Scenarios of Concealment Crimes

Concealing crimes focuses more on assisting upstream criminals in handling “proceeds of crime”, specifically manifested as the perpetrator knowingly assisting in the transfer, acquisition, holding, exchange, etc., of criminal gains or their proceeds. Common manifestations include:

1. Acquiring virtual currencies obtained through telecommunication fraud from others;

2. Knowingly engaging in “money laundering” or exchanging for fiat currency with the knowledge that it is dirty money;

3. Custody, withdrawal and other actions.

Concealing crimes emphasizes the actor’s assistance in “digesting stolen goods,” which is closer to the traditional meaning of “money laundering,” with the premise being a clear understanding of the criminal proceeds.

Therefore, the applicable boundaries of the two crimes lie in the stage at which the behavior occurs, the subject of subjective knowledge, and whether the behavior directly contributes to the success of the crime or deals with the results of the crime afterward.

3. How to accurately distinguish between aiding and abetting crimes and concealment crimes?

Accurately distinguishing between these two offenses requires a comprehensive judgment based on subjective mindset, objective behavior, and the objective evidence of the case; it cannot be simply applied based on the offense name. The following three aspects are crucial:

(1) The objects of subjective awareness are different.

1. Accomplice Crime: The perpetrator must be aware that “others are committing crimes using information networks”. That is: being aware that others are engaging in online illegal activities such as telecom fraud, gambling, and infringing on citizens’ personal information (only a general awareness is required), and still providing assistance.

2. Concealment of crime: The actor must have knowledge that “the property involved is derived from criminal activities.” That is: it is not necessary to be aware of the specific details of the original criminal act, it is sufficient to know that “the property or virtual currency being handled is illicit funds.”

In other words, the “knowledge” in the crime of assisting in a crime refers to the awareness of the criminal act itself, while the “knowledge” in the crime of concealing refers to the awareness of the proceeds of the crime.

(2) Different time points of behavior occurrence

1. Aiding and abetting crimes often occur during or before the crime, playing a “supporting” role;

2. Concealment of crime usually occurs after the crime has been completed, serving the purpose of “laundering stolen goods.”

For example, helping a scammer open a virtual currency wallet and participate in fund transfers may constitute aiding and abetting; however, if the scammer has already completed the fraud and hands over the coins to others for custody or sale, the other party may then constitute a concealment crime.

(3) Whether it constitutes an accomplished crime

Concealment behavior often has a strong causal relationship with the crime result. For example, without money laundering transfers, the funds of the fraud gang cannot be cashed out. Although assisting crimes also involve helping upstream crimes to “monetize their gains,” it does not determine whether the upstream crime can be established.

Finally, let’s discuss the judicial practice recommendations. For defense lawyers, they can approach the defense from the following two aspects:

First is the evidence level: it is necessary to focus on analyzing the ways in which the actor obtains the currency, whether the communication records mention upstream crimes, and whether there is an intention to “cleanse” the direction of the currency.

The second aspect is the subjective level: if the defendant truly did not know that the upstream behavior was a crime, and only knew that “this coin is not clean,” it should be considered to apply the crime of assisting in the crime, advocating for a “minor offense” treatment.

IV. Conclusion

With the support of highly anonymous, easily cross-border, and decentralized technologies in virtual currencies, the difficulty of applying criminal law has significantly increased, and the boundaries between aiding and concealing crimes have become increasingly blurred. However, precisely within this ambiguous boundary, criminal lawyers in the Web3 field should take on the role of “legal translators”. They not only need to master the skills of traditional criminal defense but also deeply understand the underlying logic and practical uses of virtual currencies.

From the perspective of criminal policy, the precise application of minor and serious charges concerns the law’s restraint and the realization of justice. From the standpoint of personal rights protection, the ability to accurately distinguish between assisting crimes and concealing crimes directly determines the fate of the individuals involved.

In the future, as judicial practices become further standardized and the legal system for virtual currencies gradually improves, the applicability of laws in this field will become clearer. However, before that, each distinction of charges in criminal cases within the cryptocurrency circle is a severe test of the professional competence and sense of responsibility of lawyers.