Author: Lawyer Shao Shiwei
Buying and selling virtual currency to earn price differences, but being investigated due to receiving foreign exchange funds—this article originates from a real case handled by Lawyer Shao, where an OTC merchant was accused of涉嫌非法经营罪 (illegal business operation crime) and掩饰隐瞒犯罪所得罪 (crime of concealing criminal proceeds) due to USDT over-the-counter transactions.
In this case, the party involved had long been engaged in buying and selling USDT to earn price differences. During a normal transaction, they unfortunately received RMB funds transferred by an upstream underground bank for illegal foreign exchange on behalf of others. Through big data comparison, this fund was identified as foreign exchange funds.
The question then arises: Does merely earning virtual currency price differences, because of receiving foreign exchange funds, require bearing criminal responsibility for upstream illegal foreign exchange trading?
More notably, within the handling unit, there are differing opinions on whether to apply the crime of illegal business operation or the crime of concealing criminal proceeds.
Lawyer Shao's view is that such cases cannot be simply characterized; it is necessary to hierarchically determine the actor's status, role, and degree of subjective knowledge. In specific individual cases, there is still room for defense.
1、Does Receiving Foreign Exchange Funds Automatically Constitute the Crime of Illegal Business Operation?
1、Why Judicial Authorities Tend to Handle It as the Crime of Illegal Business Operation
The logic of the handling unit is that since the upstream has been identified as engaging in illegal foreign exchange trading, and the U merchant received funds from this chain during the transaction, objectively playing a role in "providing accounts to assist fund flow," it should therefore be identified as complicity in the crime of illegal business operation related to illegal foreign exchange trading.
However, Lawyer Shao believes that the key issue is: even if the upstream criminal facts can be ascertained, it cannot be automatically presumed that the U merchant constitutes complicity. It is necessary to specifically analyze their status, role in the entire fund chain, and the degree of subjective knowledge.
2、Examining the Logic of Exoneration for the Crime of Illegal Business Operation from Typical Cases
This issue was actually addressed in a very typical hierarchical processing sample in the typical cases of administrative and criminal reverse connection in the foreign exchange field jointly released by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange in May 2025.
In the case of Chen Mouhong and Wu Mourong涉嫌非法经营罪 (suspected crime of illegal business operation), the judicial authorities ultimately adopted different handling methods for Chen Moumou and Wu Moulin (husband and wife, referred to as A) and Chen Mouhong and Wu Mourong (relatives of A, referred to as B).
Case Brief:
A, without actually engaging in import and export foreign trade business, opened multiple individual foreign exchange settlement accounts in the name of A and B's individually-owned businesses, provided these accounts to underground bank gangs in the form of fictitious trade to receive foreign exchange, and after bank settlement, transferred RMB to domestic accounts designated by the underground bank, involving an amount of 560 million RMB, from which they earned handling fees and bank settlement rebates totaling more than 760,000 RMB.
In February 2024, Zhejiang police transferred all four to the procuratorate on suspicion of the crime of illegal business operation. Ultimately, the court ruled that A constituted the crime of illegal business operation (其中陈某某被判处有期徒刑四年八个月) (among them, Chen Moumou was sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment).
However, for B, the procuratorate believed that although they provided accounts, it could not be proven that they directly engaged in illegal foreign exchange trading, and made a decision not to prosecute B. Although B's settlement amount was as high as more than 260 million RMB, ultimately only a total fine of 45,000 RMB was imposed on these two individuals.
Analysis:
Why is the handling result so disparate when both provided accounts to receive funds from the underground bank?
The reason lies in the judicial authorities' different determinations regarding the actor's degree of subjective knowledge, whether they directly participated in exchange operations, and whether they actually profited from it.
In this case, A had direct communication with the underground bank, actively participated in fabricating trade backgrounds, clearly knew the purpose of the funds, and obtained stable收益 (收益 profits); while B, although providing accounts, did not directly participate in the core links of the exchange chain, and it was not proven that there was clear profit, so they were not found to constitute the crime of illegal business operation.
Then, referring to the above case, in the process of buying and selling virtual currency and transacting with others, if the funds received are换汇款 (换汇款 foreign exchange funds) transferred by an upstream underground bank, whether it constitutes the crime of illegal business operation同样也需要分层认定 (同样也需要分层认定 also needs to be determined hierarchically):
In practice, U merchants and their customers are often not directly对接的 (对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接的对接极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。), there is often the participation of intermediaries. Precisely because there is no direct contact between the buyer and seller, there is a certain information gap, which also leads to the reason why the U merchant, when receiving RMB, receives funds from the upstream transaction's illegal foreign exchange.
Therefore, in this situation, without evidence proving that the U merchant明知 (明知 knowingly knew) that others were涉嫌非法买卖外汇 (涉嫌非法买卖外汇 suspected of illegal foreign exchange trading) and still provided assistance, the status and role of the U merchant are similar to B in the above case, and they should not constitute the crime of illegal business operation. The ones the judicial authorities should真正追责 (真正追责 truly hold accountable) are the aforementioned intermediaries who may涉嫌与地下钱庄共同构成非法经营罪 (涉嫌与地下钱庄共同构成非法经营罪 be suspected of jointly constituting the crime of illegal business operation with the underground bank).
Furthermore, through the above case, it can be seen that whether there is获利 (获利 profit) is also a key point for judicial authorities to presume whether the actor has the subjective明知 (明知 knowledge) required for the crime of illegal business operation.
3、Does "Price Difference Income" Equate to "Profit" in the Crime of Illegal Business Operation?
So, can the price difference earned by U merchants from buying and selling virtual currency be identified as "profit"?
Lawyer Shao believes that the price difference earned by U merchants from buying and selling virtual currency cannot be simply equated with the exchange rate difference income in illegal foreign exchange trading cases. Although both involve the form of "buy low, sell high" and "earning the difference," they are fundamentally different in legal nature and behavioral substance. The key lies in the specific transaction behavior in individual cases: whether it is for investment arbitrage or providing disguised foreign exchange services for others.
If the actor aims to earn the market price difference of the virtual currency itself, independently buys low and sells high, with profits coming from the price fluctuations of the virtual currency market, and funds circulate unidirectionally in accounts they control in a "fiat currency → virtual currency → fiat currency" cycle, then it belongs to legitimate personal investment arbitrage.
However, if the actor uses virtual currency (such as USDT) as a medium and tool to provide exchange services between RMB and foreign currency for others, achieving cross-border fund transfer, with profits coming from exchange rate differences, handling fees, or service fees, and the substance is remuneration obtained from disguised foreign exchange trading business, helping the upstream crime essentially form a cross-border "对敲" (对敲 matched trade) foreign exchange closed loop of "domestic RMB - virtual currency - foreign foreign currency" or the reverse, helping funds achieve cross-border flow, then it涉嫌非法买卖外汇类非法经营罪 (涉嫌非法买卖外汇类非法经营罪 is suspected of the crime of illegal business operation related to illegal foreign exchange trading).
2、Taking a Step Back, Could It Constitute the Crime of Concealing Criminal Proceeds?
Even if, in an individual case, it is impossible to prove that the U merchant had subjective knowledge of the upstream illegal foreign exchange trading, making it difficult to认定其构成非法经营罪 (认定其构成非法经营罪 determine that they constitute the crime of illegal business operation), can the judicial authorities "take a step back" and instead evaluate their behavior as the crime of concealing criminal proceeds?
According to the latest judicial interpretation of the crime of concealing criminal proceeds, which came into effect on August 26, 2025, the law has a clear definition of "criminal proceeds": it refers to illicit money, illicit goods, or other property interests obtained through crime.
The U merchant "unfortunately" receiving upstream foreign exchange funds during the virtual currency transaction is often viewed from the judicial perspective as the act of "providing fund accounts" to help the upstream transfer funds. But determining guilt or innocence requires returning to two core premises: whether the nature of the funds is clear, and whether the actor "knowingly" knew.
1、Has the Fund Been Confirmed as "Criminal Proceeds"?
The premise of the crime of concealing criminal proceeds is the existence of "criminal proceeds." If a complete chain of evidence cannot be formed to prove that a specific sum of money is the proceeds directly generated by upstream criminal behavior, merely relying on "abnormal account flow" or "the overall chain involves a huge amount" is not sufficient to automatically presume that a specific transaction fund constitutes criminal proceeds.
In practice, underground bank cases often involve流水 (流水 flow) of billions or even tens of billions, with serious fund commingling. If it is impossible to correlate specific exchangers, specific criminal facts, and specific transfer behaviors, and only rely on "big data comparison abnormalities" as a basis, the evidence level still has room for dispute.
2、How to Determine "Knowingly Knew"?
According to the latest judicial interpretation, "knowingly knew" includes both actually knowing and应当知道 (应当知道 should have known). But "should have known" needs to be comprehensively judged based on factors such as the information content the actor was exposed to, abnormal transaction circumstances, fund scale, professional background, etc.
If the U merchant is conducting normal peer-to-peer USDT trading with the counterparty, the transaction price conforms to market conditions, the counterparty did not exhibit abnormal behavior, and the funds did not show obvious characteristics of splitting, jumping, or evading supervision, then in this case, merely because it was discovered afterwards that the funds came from an underground bank chain cannot automatically lead to the inference that they had subjective knowledge.
Criminal law evaluation emphasizes the state of cognition at the time of the act, not reasoning backwards from the result afterwards.
3、Does High-Frequency Trading Necessarily Presume General Intent
But the situation in judicial practice is often not so "ideal." In judicial practice, U merchants engaging in large-amount, high-frequency fiat currency transactions are本身就处于较高的法律风险之中 (本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中本身就处于较高的法律风险之中 themselves in a high legal risk). If a U merchant is长期从事 (长期从事 long-term engaged in) USDT and RMB exchange business, especially if the trading counterparts are mostly people with unclear identities and complex fund transactions, the judicial authorities are likely to结合其职业经历 (结合其职业经历 combine their professional experience) to presume that they have a "general intent" regarding the illegality of the fund source. Therefore, this requires defense lawyers to结合个案的具体情况 (结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合个案的具体情况结合极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。), specifically deconstruct in individual cases:
Are there abnormal transaction characteristics?
Is there premium income明显高于市场 (明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显高于市场明显极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。 significantly higher than the market)?
Are there actions to actively evade supervision?
Has the actor been exposed to information足以引发高度怀疑 (足以引发高度怀疑 sufficient to cause high suspicion)?
Only on the basis of clarifying these questions one by one can the degree of "knowledge" be legally evaluated.
3、Final Words
Simply buying and selling virtual currency to earn price differences, under current policies, is not prohibited nor has it been identified as criminal behavior. The risk truly concentrates on the source of funds and the role of the transaction in the overall chain.
Once funds enter underground bank, gambling-related, fraud-related, or illegal foreign exchange chains, even if it is only formally completing a peer-to-peer transaction, one may be卷入刑事案件当中 (卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入刑事案件当中卷入极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。 involved in criminal cases).
Therefore, the legal judgment of such cases usually does not depend on the appearance of the transaction, but on the comprehensive judgment of the evidence system regarding the actor's status, role, and degree of "knowledge." The same transaction model may have明显差异 (明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异明显差异极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。 significant differences) in handling results under different evidence systems.
Therefore, relying solely on the individual's subjective claim of "not knowing" as a basis for judgment is insufficient. Especially in large-amount, high-frequency transactions, judicial authorities will often review whether one "should have known." The judgment of the case nature should be谨慎分析 (谨慎分析 cautiously analyzed) based on the specific transaction background and evidence materials.
Special声明 (声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明声明极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。 statement): This article is an original article by Lawyer Shao Shiwei,仅代表本文作者个人观点 (仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人观点仅代表本文作者个人极参与虚构贸易背景,明确知道资金用途,并获取稳定收益;而B虽有提供账户行为,但未直接参与换汇链条核心环节,也未证明存在明确获利,故未被认定构成非法经营罪。 only represents the personal views of the author of this article), and does not constitute legal consultation or legal advice on specific matters.
