Distinction between the crime of assisting information network criminal activities and the crime of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds in virtual money crimes.

With the globalization of virtual money, the related legal issues have become increasingly complex, especially in criminal justice practice. Helping information network crime (referred to as "aiding crimes") and concealing or disguising criminal proceeds and the crime of benefiting from criminal proceeds (referred to as "concealment crimes") are two common charges in virtual money crimes, but in practical application, they often overlap and get confused.

This confusion not only affects the accurate determination of the case but also directly relates to the severity of the sentencing. Although both crimes are important tools for combating cybercrime and money laundering, there are significant differences in terms of subjective intent, methods of conduct, and sentencing ranges.

This article will conduct an in-depth discussion on how to accurately distinguish between these two crimes in virtual money offenses through case analysis, legal reasoning, and practical experience, providing reference for relevant practitioners.

1. Case Introduction

For example, in the case of Chen Si and others concealing the judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Jiaozuo City, Henan Province (2022) Yu 08 Criminal Final No. 50:

In December 2020, Chen Si and others, knowing that others needed bank cards to transfer illegal proceeds, provided their own bank cards to participate in the transfer (partly by purchasing Virtual Money) and kept accounts and reconciled through online groups. The three bank cards provided by Chen Si transferred funds of over 147,000 yuan.

In February 2021, after the relevant personnel were arrested, Chen Si and others continued to organize others to use bank cards or to transfer criminal proceeds through the purchase of Virtual Money, with the amount involved reaching over 441,000 yuan.

The first-instance court found Chen Si guilty of concealment and sentenced him to four years in prison, along with a fine of 20,000 yuan. The second-instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

This case reflects the disputes among the prosecution, defense, and court regarding the application of the crime of assisting in crime and the crime of concealment when transferring illegal gains from virtual money.

2. The Scope of Application of Assistance and Concealment in Criminal Cases in the Coin Circle

In criminal cases related to virtual money, the applicable boundaries of the crimes of aiding and concealing are closely related to the role of the actor, their level of subjective awareness, and the consequences of their actions. Although both crimes require the actor to "know," the applicable scenarios differ significantly:

(1) Typical application scenarios of aiding and abetting crimes

The crime of assisting others refers to knowingly providing technical support, promoting, directing traffic, payment settlement, network storage, communication transmission, and other assistance to others who are committing crimes using information networks. In the field of Virtual Money, common acts of assisting crime include:

1. Assist fraud groups in collecting coins and transferring coins;
2. Knowingly providing address transfer services for illegal funds;
3. Provide a Virtual Money wallet address for fund transfer.

The key to this crime lies in the "assistance" behavior directly facilitating information network crimes, without the need for the ultimate purpose of obtaining profits.

(2) Typical Application Scenarios of Concealment Crimes

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

1. Acquiring virtual money obtained through telecom fraud from others;
2. Knowing that it is illegal funds, still engaging in "money laundering" or exchanging it for fiat currency;
3. Custody, withdrawal, and other actions.

The concealment of crime emphasizes the actor's assistance in "digesting stolen goods", which is closer to the traditional meaning of "money laundering", and the premise is a clear understanding of the criminal proceeds.

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

3. How to Accurately Distinguish Between Aiding and Abetting Crimes and Concealment Crimes?

Accurately distinguishing between these two crimes requires a comprehensive judgment based on subjective mindset, objective behavior, and case evidence; it cannot be simply applied according to the crime names. The following three aspects are crucial:

(1) The subjects of subjective awareness are different.

1. Assisting Crimes: The actor must be aware of "others using the information network to commit crimes" itself. That is, it is sufficient to have a general awareness that others are engaging in network illegal activities such as telecom fraud, gambling, and infringing on citizens' personal information, and still provide assistance.

2. Concealment Offense: The actor must have knowledge that "the property being handled is criminally obtained." It is not necessary to know the specific details of the original criminal act, it is sufficient to know that "the property or virtual money being handled is illegally obtained."

In other words, the "knowledge" in the crime of aiding and abetting refers to awareness of the criminal act itself, while the "knowledge" in the crime of concealment refers to awareness of the proceeds of the crime.

(2) The time nodes of the actions are different.

1. The crime of aiding and abetting often occurs during or before the commission of the crime, serving as a "supporting role";

2. The crime of concealment usually occurs after the crime has been completed, serving the purpose of "cleaning the proceeds of crime."

For example, assisting in opening a virtual money wallet and participating in fund transfers may constitute aiding and abetting; however, if the crime has already been completed, transferring the coins to someone else for custody or sale may constitute concealment.

(3) Whether the crime was completed.

Concealment behavior often has a strong causal relationship with the criminal outcome, for example, without fund transfers, the fraud gang cannot cash out the funds. Although the crime of aiding and abetting also involves helping upstream crimes to "realize profits", it does not determine whether the upstream crime can be established.

For defense attorneys, there are two levels from which to approach the defense:

1. Evidence level: It is necessary to focus on analyzing the methods by which the actor obtained the coin, whether communication records mention upstream crimes, and whether there is an intention of "cleaning" the coin's flow.

2. Subjective aspect: If the defendant indeed did not know that the upstream behavior was a crime, only knowing that "there is a problem with this coin," it should be considered to apply the crime of assisting in the crime, arguing for "light offense" treatment.

4. Conclusion

Under the technical characteristics of Virtual Money, the difficulty of applying criminal law has significantly increased, and the boundaries between the crime of aiding and the crime of concealing have become increasingly blurred. Criminal lawyers in the Web3 space should take on the role of "legal translators", not only mastering the skills of traditional criminal defense but also deeply understanding the underlying logic and practical uses of coins.

From the perspective of criminal policy, the precise application of light and heavy crimes concerns the restraint of the law and the realization of justice. From the perspective of personal rights protection, the ability to accurately distinguish between aiding crimes and concealing crimes directly determines the fate trajectory of the individuals involved.

In the future, with the further standardization of judicial practices and the gradual improvement of the legal system for Virtual Money, the application of law in this field will become clearer. However, before that, each distinction of charges in criminal cases related to virtual currencies is a severe test of the professional ability and sense of responsibility of lawyers.