Analysis of Cross-Border Criminal Risks for Web3 Practitioners and Discussion on Jurisdiction

With the continuous advancement of blockchain technology, public chains such as Ethereum have gradually demonstrated immense potential to become the next generation of value internet. This global public infrastructure enables point-to-point data transmission, zero-cost access, and information that is open, transparent, and immutable. However, its core feature of decentralization also brings challenges in regulation, leading to the internationalization and concealment of criminal activities such as fraud, theft, and money laundering. Traditional cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement systems have struggled to effectively address these new types of crimes.

This situation is driving countries to undertake significant reforms of traditional cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement systems. This article will explore whether Web3 practitioners can avoid legal risks when going abroad, based on relevant legal provisions in China.

Basic Concepts of Cross-Border Criminal Jurisdiction and Law Enforcement

Before discussing cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement, it is essential to understand the core concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the foundation of the modern international legal system, with states as the subjects of rights, meaning that a state enjoys the highest and final authority within its own territorial boundaries. At the same time, the principle of sovereign equality requires countries to respect each other and not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

Based on this, the exercise of jurisdiction can be divided into two aspects: internal and external. The internal exercise of rights is a direct embodiment of state sovereignty, while the external exercise of rights is subject to strict limitations to avoid infringing on the sovereignty of other countries. Cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement, as a form of "enforcement jurisdiction" exercised externally, are inevitably subject to strict restrictions.

In recent years, some developed Western countries have arbitrarily expanded their jurisdiction using economic advantages to implement extraterritorial jurisdiction over overseas enterprises and individuals. This practice is considered an abuse of cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement.

Cross-Border Criminal Jurisdiction and Law Enforcement Practices in China

When Chinese judicial authorities conduct cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement, they must first determine their jurisdiction over the relevant criminal suspects and their actions, and then request assistance from foreign countries through criminal justice assistance procedures, based on international treaties, bilateral or multilateral mutual assistance agreements, etc.

Determination of Jurisdiction ###

There are mainly three bases for China's cross-border criminal jurisdiction:

1. Personal jurisdiction: Refers to criminal acts committed by Chinese citizens abroad.
2. Protective jurisdiction: Regarding the criminal acts committed by foreign nationals abroad that endanger China or Chinese citizens.
3. Universal jurisdiction: Arising from international treaties or other international legal obligations.

In addition, the "dual criminality principle" must also be followed, meaning that the criminal act constitutes a crime under the laws of both the requesting country and the requested country.

Request for Assistance in Criminal Justice and Case Progression

Criminal justice assistance is the foundation of cross-border criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement. China's "Law on International Criminal Judicial Assistance" stipulates the scope of criminal judicial assistance, including the delivery of documents, investigation and evidence collection, and arranging for witnesses to testify.

The subject of criminal justice assistance depends on whether there is an assistance treaty between China and the requested country. If there is an assistance treaty, it is proposed by the Ministry of Justice, the National Supervisory Commission, and other relevant departments within their authority; if there is no assistance treaty, it is resolved through diplomatic means.

It is worth noting that China has signed criminal justice assistance agreements with certain Western countries, providing a legal basis for cooperation between the two sides.

Analysis of Cross-Border Cryptocurrency Asset Fraud Cases

According to a cross-border cryptocurrency fraud case announced by the Jing'an District Prosecutor's Office in Shanghai, the criminal gang lured victims into investing in cryptocurrencies through methods such as pulling people into groups and impersonating "senior mentors". After investigation, the Shanghai police determined that this was a cross-border telecommunications network fraud gang and arrested 59 returning suspects across various locations in the country.

This case shows that despite China having signed mutual legal assistance treaties with multiple countries, the actual usage rate is low. This may be due to reasons such as the inefficiency of criminal justice assistance and complex procedures.

Conclusion

It is important to clarify that engaging in Web3-related businesses does not necessarily mean violating the law. However, China's current policies adopt a cautious attitude towards blockchain technology and crypto assets, and the phenomenon of "profit-driven law enforcement" in some regions has led to a certain misunderstanding of Web3 practitioners in society.

However, if Chinese citizens engage in criminal activities targeting other Chinese citizens abroad under the guise of cryptocurrency assets, they cannot easily escape the sanctions of Chinese criminal law, even if they are overseas. Therefore, Web3 practitioners should act with caution, strictly adhere to laws and regulations, and avoid crossing legal red lines.