Who is responsible for receiving stolen money from buying and selling virtual currency?

Introduction

It is very common in practice that bank cards are blocked due to buying and selling virtual currencies. Friends who often speculate in currencies will also understand the relevant legal knowledge on their own and know that my country's relevant policies do not prohibit the purchase and sale of virtual currencies. However, many consultants told me that when they communicated with the freezing authority to unfreeze their cards, they were not only refused to do so, but even scolded in the face. Obviously they were also victims, and buying and selling virtual currencies was obviously not illegal. Why? Will he be regarded as a "bad guy" by the public security organs?

So,Why is it so hard to thaw? Lawyer Shao often says, "In the eyes of U-business people, the 'visible' transactions are always just the tip of the iceberg." Let’s start with a case and look at the part above the iceberg first (a real case, the industry and amount have been slightly rewritten to protect privacy, the rest are real).

1.The "card freeze deadlock" caused by a virtual currency transaction

Lao Wang is in the fur business , currency speculation is just an occasional hobby. One day, as usual, I placed an order to sell U on the exchange. Someone contacted me to buy, but the buyer seemed to be a novice and not very good at operating, so the two added WeChat. The buyer's name was Xiaoyu, and Lao Wang patiently guided him step by step. Xiaoyu until the deal is completed. Later, Xiaoyu became proficient in the operation and the two of them could chat well. Xiaoyu often asked Lao Wang to buy U.

But Lao Wang is also curious. The other party is a novice in the currency circle at first glance. Why is there such a huge demand to buy U? Just ask her why she bought so many Us? And kindly reminded her not to be deceived. But Xiaoyu said that she and a few friends are engaged in investment partnership. Although she may not understand much, her friends know better than her, so Lao Wang does not have to worry. She also said that every time she pays Lao Wang, the money she pays is her own. salary income, and provided Lao Wang with his own salary flow.

Lao Wang confirmed that the source of the other party's funds was legitimate, and that it was indeed the other party who transferred money to him every time. He felt relieved, but he kept reminding the other party that he could buy less and invest less first to see if the project can work. If you can't make a profit, don't invest a large amount of money into one project at once.

The two parties traded more than ten orders within three months, and Lao Wang received 600,000 yuan from the sale. One day, Lao Wang discovered that his bank card had been frozen. Through the bank, Lao Wang contacted the freezing authority, only to find out that it was Xiaoyu who had reported the case. Lao Wang contacted Xiaoyu, but the other party never responded to any messages.

The police told Lao Wang that the victim Xiaoyu reported that she had been defrauded. The reason was that Xiaoyu met a person online. After the other person got acquainted with Xiaoyu, he said he had a financial management project with virtual currency and returned the money. Xiaoyu showed off the profits. Xiaoyu believed it was true and said that he wanted to try it too. The other party asked Xiaoyu to buy U on the exchange and transferred it to him. He helped Xiaoyu make investments. Xiaoyu downloaded an exchange app and contacted Lao Wang. Xiaoyu first gave a small amount of the U he bought to the other party. At first, he did get good profits, so Xiaoyu increased his investment. Unexpectedly, three months later, the other party blocked Xiaoyu.

The police informed Lao Wang, The victim Xiaoyu said that you and the person who deceived her into investing in a virtual currency project worked together to commit the crime and defrauded her of 600,000. Is this true?

Lao Wang took out his mobile phone and submitted all the chat records between him and Xiaoyu to the police. The policeman handling the case was also very serious and responsible. He reviewed all the communication records between the two parties and made multiple rounds of questioning records about Xiaoyu. , Xiaoyu admitted that the person who deceived her online asked her to go to the exchange to find a U-dealer, so she contacted Lao Wang herself.

Therefore, the organizer can confirm that Lao Wang is innocent. And relevant chat records show: Lao Wang also reminded Xiaoyu many times to buy less and be careful not to be deceived by others.

Old Wang thought, since he is innocent, it should be no problem to clear the card, right? Unexpectedly, the organizer not only failed to release his card, but also froze all the bank cards in his name! ? Now, not only basic daily life, Lao Wang's fur business has also been greatly affected. The payment for goods that customers put into Lao Wang's company account has also been implicated because of transactions with this card. .

After that, the case reached a deadlock - Lao Wang was only willing to compensate the victim up to 20,000 yuan, and the victim asked Lao Wang to pay her a full compensation of 600,000 yuan. The police neither responded to Lao Wang nor The card was unfrozen and the funds in the card were not deducted to the victim. All bank cards under Lao Wang’s name have been frozen for nearly a year.

2.Everyone has their own position

Why is this helpless deadlock reached? Because everyone has their own perspective.

1. The victim’s perspective

The victim has been deceived. Due to the lack of relevant evidence and clues, in some places it is extremely difficult to even file a case to defend his rights. It was not easy to file a case. Due to many practical reasons, the police really could not catch the real "bad guy", and even if they did, it would be difficult to recover the victim's funds.

2. The perspective of the seller of U

It is not illegal for individuals to buy and sell virtual currency. My U is also from a legal source and is not stolen. It was scammed. The RMB I received was also the normal USDT market price. Why did a victim appear "out of thin air" and say that he had been defrauded? Then he froze my card and even asked me to pay for all his losses?

He was cheated, what does it have to do with me? Why don't the police catch the real fraudster?

3. Public security perspective

Through the capital transaction chain, Zhang San’s suspicion of involvement in the case can be ruled out. However, the fraudsters upstream could not be caught, and the victims kept clamoring for the police to arrest them and recover their losses. They even kept complaining and petitioning, saying that we were not doing anything. We tried to work as an intermediary and explained to the victim that Zhang San was not the one who defrauded you of your money. He was willing to compensate you, so you can’t ask for such high prices. As a result, the victim actually said that Zhang San and we were in the same group! ? The victim is currently very excited, and the two parties cannot negotiate a compensation amount. If we unfreeze Zhang San's card now, wouldn't the victim become more violent? Our work in handling cases is also subject to assessment... But it is true that Zhang San is not suspected of committing the crime, and we have no right to directly deduct the money from Zhang San's account, so let's freeze the account. Maybe Zhang San will take the initiative to reconcile with the victim?

3.Thinking about the solution to the deadlock

Lawyer Shao has come across many cases where the purchase and sale of virtual currencies was frozen. It is not unusual for the client to have all his bank cards frozen because he sold a U.S. dollar. But what if it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable if it exists? of course not.

1. Regarding “the buying and selling of virtual currencies is not protected by law”

When many card owners communicated with the organizer that their buying and selling of U was not illegal, Many police officers will respond: Yes, we also know that buying and selling virtual currency is not illegal, but it is not protected by law.

However, Lawyer Shao believes that the above point of view is a misunderstanding of "the sale and purchase of virtual currencies is not protected by law". Not being protected by law should mean that, for example, if you find someone else to entrust your virtual currency for investment and financial management, and you end up losing money, or if you lend someone else’s virtual currency and they are unwilling to repay it, then you should bear the risk at your own risk This kind of view is indeed confirmed by relevant court judgments. For details, please refer to my previous article "Court View: Transferring virtual currency to the other party is an illegal debt!" If you borrow it, don’t expect it back! ——Advice from lawyers: How can I get my money back? 》.

But for the payees (sellers) whose cards have been frozen, or even blocked or concealed for buying and selling virtual currency, they not only lose the virtual currency, but also have to refund the so-called The victims' losses, and the scope of their losses, have exceeded the scope of "bearing risks at your own risk". This is obviously unfair. The victim is a victim, and the seller is also a victim.

2. About freezing all bank cards in your name

As mentioned in the real case mentioned above, although the existing evidence has excluded Zhang San’s involvement in the case However, in order to cope with the pressure from the victim, the investigators froze all of Zhang San's bank cards, hoping to force Zhang San to take the initiative to reconcile with the victim. This is obviously unreasonable.

There are also some case-handling units, although their attitude is: they will not unblock the card without compensating the victim's losses, but they are willing to issue a statement to the card owner to eliminate the card owner's suspicion of involvement in the case, so that the card owner can apply to the bank for unfreezing . Although this brings convenience to the party concerned to a certain extent and allows other bank cards in his name to be used normally, for the card owner, his core demand is still not to refund the money. Of course, in many of the cases we handle, there are cases where the public security agency ultimately unfreezes the card without any responsibility to the card owner, but it is relatively rare.

According to legal provisions, in cases of telecommunications fraud, the public security organs do have the right to deduct funds and return them to the victim, but there is a prerequisite - the collection account must be controlled by criminals. The card owner who sells U normally has no intention of colluding with the criminals, and his collection account is obviously not a bank account controlled by the criminals. Therefore, the public security organs have no right to debit the payee's account for such transactions - this is also the reason why many card owners with frozen cards have not been deducted from their account balances despite years of stalemate with the public security organs.

"Several Provisions on the Return of Frozen Funds in New Illegal and Criminal Cases on Telecommunications Networks" Article 2 The so-called new illegal and criminal cases on telecoms networks as mentioned in these regulations refer to criminals using telecommunications, Internet and other technologies to send text messages, make calls, etc. An illegal and criminal case is committed by using phone calls, implanting Trojans and other means to trick (steal) victims into transferring (depositing) funds into bank accounts controlled by them.

Article 4: The public security organs are responsible for finding out the victim’s fund flow, notifying the victim in a timely manner, making a decision on the return of the funds, and implementing the return.

3. Determination of the payee’s acquisition in good faith

Lawyer Shao believes that for the payee (i.e. the USDT seller), the payee It cannot control whether the buyer himself makes the payment, nor can he predict whether the money the buyer instructs a third party to make is illegal. Since virtual currency is recognized as a virtual commodity, transactions between individuals are not prohibited. , then as long as the USDT seller can provide evidence to prove that the two parties are buying and selling USDT normally (such as screenshots of communication on Binance and Eureka Exchange, communication records between the two parties, and the U held by them has legal source channels), then according to The law stipulates that the seller's sale of virtual currency constitutes acquisition in good faith and should not be recovered or returned to the relevant victims.

"Several Provisions on the Return of Frozen Funds in New Illegal and Criminal Cases on Telecommunications Networks" Article 2 The so-called new illegal and criminal cases on telecoms networks as mentioned in these regulations refer to criminals using telecommunications, Internet and other technologies to send text messages, make calls, etc. An illegal and criminal case is committed by using phone calls, implanting Trojans and other means to trick (steal) victims into transferring (depositing) funds into bank accounts controlled by them.

Article 4: The public security organs are responsible for finding out the victim’s fund flow, notifying the victim in a timely manner, making a decision on the return of the funds, and implementing the return.

According to Article 10 of the "Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Fraud" by the two Supreme People's Courts The perpetrator has used the fraudulent property for When paying off debts or transferring them to others, if one of the following circumstances occurs, the property shall be recovered in accordance with the law:

(1) The other party knowingly takes the property for fraud;

(2) The other party does so without compensation. Obtaining fraudulent property;

(3) The other party obtains fraudulent property at a price that is significantly lower than the market price;

(4) The other party obtains fraudulent property due to illegal debts or illegal crimes active.

If another person obtains fraudulent property in good faith, it will not be recovered.

Lawyer Shao recently handled a card freezing case involving virtual currency transactions. When communicating with the person handling the case, his understanding of "it is not illegal to buy and sell virtual currency between individuals in the country" was: personal trading It refers to the form of transaction that can only be done through the wallet. If it goes through an exchange, it is not C to C, so buying and selling virtual currencies on the exchange is illegal. As long as the funds involved in the fraud are received, the full amount must be returned to the victim. ——This kind of view also directly explains why the unfreezing of virtual currency cards is often blocked? The understanding of virtual currency transactions varies greatly from place to place.

4.Written at the end

Since case handling units in various places have different levels of understanding of virtual currencies and related transactions, not only As a result, it is difficult to "handle the same case in the same case" when it comes to unfreezing bank cards. What's more, in a criminal case handled by Lawyer Shao, when the similarity was as high as 95% with the case where the card was frozen due to transaction, the client was actually arrested. Convicted of concealment and trust. As a criminal lawyer who has been practicing for many years, I occasionally feel puzzled when encountering such cases.

So, back to the original question of this article: Who should bear the responsibility for selling U and receiving stolen money? Tell me your views in the comment section below.