一个币圈创业者需要格外重视的罪名——非法利用信息网络罪(二)

币界网2024-08-11 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-08-11 tarihinde güncellendi

币界网报道:

图片

说起帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪(以下简称帮信罪),可能很多人并不陌生,自2019年两高发布司法解释明确帮信罪的立案标准,以及2020年全国各地广泛开展“断卡”行动,推动了帮信罪的大规模适用,由此被大多数人所熟知。

但刑法287条其实规定了两个罪名,一个是帮信罪,一个是非法利用信息网络罪(以下简称非信罪)。关于非信罪,对于绝大多数人,甚至是对很多律师来说,都是比较陌生的罪名。

可能很多Web3创业者对于国内不能开交易所,不能发币,不能挖矿等常识性法律规定是知道的,但对于币圈相关资讯信息的发布、推广,一般不认为存在法律风险。

但是,通过本人既往承办的涉本罪的币圈刑事案件的经验总结,这么一个“小众”的罪名,Web3创业者一定要格外重视。

作者 | 邵诗巍律师

本文上篇请➡️:

一个币圈创业者需要格外重视的罪名——非法利用信息网络罪(一)

接着上文继续说。

01

什么是非信罪

2、从九二四通知看哪些币圈业务模式涉嫌非信罪

条款三:

加强对虚拟货币相关的互联网信息内容和接入管理。互联网企业不得为虚拟货币相关业务活动提供网络经营场所、商业展示、营销宣传、付费导流等服务,发现违法违规问题线索应及时向有关部门报告,并为相关调查、侦查工作提供技术支持和协助。网信和电信主管部门根据金融管理部门移送的问题线索及时依法关闭开展虚拟货币相关业务活动的网站、移动应用程序、小程序等互联网应用。

本条文是对互联网企业的经营行为做出规制。相较于上述两条,本条内容与非信罪所规定的行为模式更为贴合,因为非信罪区别于其他罪名最为明显的特征,就是对于信息网络的利用,传播信息仅通过线上的网络方式实施。

虽然邵律师曾承办过Web平台/项目方因从事本条文中描述的相关业务,被警方以非信罪被抓的相关案件,但本人仍然认为,若该条规定的内容入刑,违反了刑法本应具有的谦抑性特征,其波及面是非常广泛且可怕的

  • 提供网络经营场所

    Web3平台或项目的“网络经营场所”通常指的是通过互联网提供的销售商品或服务的虚拟场所,例如网站、移动应用程序、小程序等在线平台,“提供网络经营场所”指的是为网络相关的商业活动提供必要的在线平台或空间。这可以包括不同类型的服务和环境,具体取决于业务的性质。

  • 商业展示:如互联网企业收取Web3平台或项目方的广告费等合作费用,发布虚拟货币交易所、DeFi、NFT、数字钱包、链游GameFi、币种币价等信息,为Web3项目或平台做展示。

  • 营销宣传:如互联网企业通过广告、内容营销、社交媒体推广、电子邮件营销等,提升Web3项目或平台的知名度,并激发潜在用户的投资欲望。

  • 付费导流:如为Web3项目或平台创建专属的广告位或推广位,通过平台的流量优势吸引潜在客户;利用平台的算法推荐系统,将Web3项目或平台的商品或服务信息推荐给目标用户群体;在平台举办的各类活动中为Web3项目或平台提供展示机会等。

02

Web3刑事律师的思考

从最早的2013年中国人民银行等五部委发布《关于防范比特币风险的通知》开始,国内对于虚拟货币及相关业务活动就一直持有严格的监管态度。后续有关监管部门也在不断出台新规,如2017年《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》(94公告),2021年《关于整治虚拟货币“挖矿”活动的通知》,2022年《关于防范NFT相关金融风险的倡议》等。

但需要说明的是,94公告、924通知等在法的效力位阶层面上属于规范性文件,而非信罪的情形为设立的网站、群组实施了违法犯罪活动,或者发布违法犯罪活动相关信息,该罪名中的“违法犯罪活动”,根据以下两高司法解释,仅限于犯罪行为和属于刑法分则规定的行为类型但尚未构成犯罪的违法行为。

因此,从法理和法的效力层面上来说,以94公告,924通知等作为认定行为人涉嫌犯罪的依据不足。

最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法利用信息网络、帮助信息网络犯罪活动等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释

第七条 刑法第二百八十七条之一规定的“违法犯罪”,包括犯罪行为和属于刑法分则规定的行为类型但尚未构成犯罪的违法行为。

另外,虽然各类政策均强调虚拟货币相关业务属于非法金融活动,但即便币圈项目被定性为“非法金融活动”,项目本身也不能与刑法当中违法犯罪活动划等号,还是要从其业务模式本身来分析。

如果某项目是一个正经的币圈项目,且项目发行在海外,如区块链游戏平台,用户是通过VPN翻墙的方式投入大量资金最终致亏损,则根据924通知等,引发的风险应自担,平台的经营行为并非违法犯罪活动,那么相关主体为该平台做营销宣传、商业展示等,不应当适用本罪名。

如果某项目是一个圈钱跑路的诈骗平台,确有被害人因被骗而遭受资金损失,或者某项目是面向国内用户的传销平台、赌博平台,相关主体为该平台做营销宣传、商业展示等,可以适用本罪名。

03

邵律师提示:

非信罪,对于Web3创业者来说,其实是一个看似很远,但又很近的罪名。

可能会有些币圈的朋友看到此文会觉得是刑事律师的“恐吓”,其实还真不是。

有的人只能看到本文是篇法条解读文章,但有的人能看懂我其实讲的都是这背后的真实案例。

总之,无论是币圈的KOL、做知识付费的社群群主、撮合交易虚拟货币的中介主体,还是币圈资讯平台、与Web3项目方进行商业合作,提供导流、营销服务的第三方主体等等,在自身经营的过程中,一定要在深刻理解国内政策的基础上,合规开展经营活动,防范法律风险。

就说到这里。

İlgili Okumalar

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit1 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit1 saat önce

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit1 saat önce

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片