Recently, King&Capital Law Firm Xu Wei team handled the case of Z suspected of disguising and concealing the proceeds of crime, which was withdrawn by the investigating authorities for review and prosecution. This case in the examination and prosecution stage, the defense lawyer to the procuratorial organs, Z does not constitute a crime, and many times with the prosecutor face to face communication, after the defense was adopted, the procuratorial organs that the evidence is insufficient, recommended that the investigating authorities to withdraw the investigation and prosecution, the investigating authorities according to the recommendations withdrawn the case. Lawyer work achieved effective defense effect.

First, the basic facts of the case

Z is a USDT buyer and seller on a virtual currency trading platform, earning the difference in price by acquiring USDT virtual coins and then selling them at a certain level of premium. During one of the sale transactions, Z was suspected of the crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime (hereinafter referred to as the “crime of concealment”) and was investigated by the A district branch of a city's public security bureau for having received fraudulent funds in his account. From the perspective of the amount of money involved in the case, Z may face a maximum statutory sentence of 7 years.

II. Jurisdiction Dispute

Xu Wei's team of lawyers intervened in this case during the review of the arrest, and after accepting the commission, Xu Wei believed that District A did not have jurisdiction over the case. Firstly, the reason why the investigating authority of District A thinks it has jurisdiction is because the first fund received by Z was transferred by a victim in District A. However, the identity of the victim is doubtful. However, the victim's identity was in doubt, and if the victim's identity could not be confirmed, District A had no factual basis for jurisdiction over the case. Second, as a separate offense, the crime of concealment does not share jurisdiction with predicate offenses, and existing law does not provide for a jurisdictional connection between predicate offenses and this crime, and there is no legal basis for jurisdiction in this case in District A. After hearing the jurisdictional objections raised by the attorneys, the prosecuting authorities of District A adopted the attorneys' opinions and made a decision not to arrest Z. The prosecuting authorities of District A also decided not to arrest Z, but did not arrest him. Shortly thereafter, the case changed jurisdiction and was transferred from District A to District B investigative authorities to continue the investigation.

Third, the defense of evidence

In addition to the obvious jurisdictional problems in this case, there were also serious flaws in the evidence. after the investigating authorities in District B concluded their investigation and transferred the case to the prosecuting authorities in District B for review and prosecution, the lawyer team continued to provide the prosecuting authorities with a legal opinion that the evidence was insufficient. The lawyers argued that the evidence in this case was insufficient to prove that Z had committed the concealment offense. First, the suspects of the upstream fraud-related crimes did not appear in the case, the upstream facts were not confirmed, and there was no premise to establish the concealment offense charged in this case. Second, the evidence in the case is insufficient to prove that Z Mou had knowledge of the nature of the funds received, and that Z Mou and the upstream buyers did not have any intentional contact to acquire the stolen funds. The lawyer considered that the facts of the case were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and suggested that the prosecutor's office should not prosecute.

At the stage of review and prosecution, the lawyer and the prosecutor communicated fully, and the prosecutor finally recognized the lawyer's opinion and said that he suggested the investigating authorities to withdraw the case and transfer it for review and prosecution.

Fourth, the case of enlightenment

This case is a successful example of procedural defense and substantive defense, although China's criminal procedure has a tendency to “focus on the entity, light on the procedure”, but the organizing lawyers believe that the procedural defense is still a part of the criminal case can not be ignored, if you can find the key procedural flaws, the flaws can be used as a defense of the success of the secret weapon.

But in cases involving virtual currencies, after-the-fact defense techniques are no longer superior, and cannot defend against all the criminal risks of trading virtual currencies. For virtual currency trading, our country has enacted laws expressly determining that virtual currencies do not have the status of fiat currencies, and there are legal risks in participating in virtual currency investment and trading activities. Here, the lawyers would also like to remind our citizens that our laws currently do not grant legal status to virtual currencies such as USDT, and that the trading behavior of virtual currencies is strictly limited and regulated. Under the tightened policy, people need to be cautious in using virtual currencies and stay away from illegal activities.