The Distinction Between Aiding Crimes and Concealment Crimes in Virtual Money Crime

With the globalization of virtual money, related legal issues are becoming increasingly complex, especially in criminal justice practice. The crime of aiding and abetting information network criminal activities (aiding crime) and the crime of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds (concealment crime) are common charges in virtual money crimes, often leading to confusion in fact-finding and legal application.

This confusion not only affects the accuracy of the case's determination but also directly relates to the severity of the sentencing. Although both crimes are legal tools aimed at combating cybercrime and money laundering, there are significant differences in terms of subjective intent, methods of conduct, and sentencing ranges.

This article will conduct an in-depth analysis through case studies, legal theory discussions, and practical experiences to accurately distinguish between these two charges in virtual money crimes, providing a reference for relevant practitioners.

I. Case Analysis

To look at the difference in the court's judgments regarding crimes involving coin-related assistance and concealment through a practical case. In a concealment case judged by a certain intermediate court, the basic facts of the case are as follows:

In December 2020, a criminal gang organized others to use bank cards to transfer criminal proceeds with the knowledge of the situation. Participants provided real-name bank cards for transfers (some through purchasing Virtual Money) and conducted bookkeeping and reconciliation in online groups. According to statistics, the amount involved reached over 147,000 yuan.

In February 2021, the main criminals were arrested. However, some participants continued to organize others to use bank cards or Virtual Money to transfer illegal gains, involving an amount of over 441,000 yuan.

The first-instance court found that the main participants constituted the crime of concealment, sentencing them to four years of fixed-term imprisonment and imposing a fine of 20,000 yuan. The defendant and their defense counsel believed that a lighter charge of aiding and abetting should apply, but the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

This case illustrates the common points of contention among the prosecution, defense, and the court when transferring illegal gains through Virtual Money—specifically the applicability of the crime of aiding and abetting and the crime of concealment.

2. The Scope of Application of the Two Crimes in Virtual Money Cases

In criminal cases involving Virtual Money, the applicable boundaries of aiding and abetting and concealing crimes are usually closely related to the role of the actor, the level of subjective awareness, and the consequences of their actions. Although both crimes require the actor to be "aware," a careful analysis will reveal that there are significant differences in the applicable scenarios for the two crimes:

(1) Typical Application Scenarios of Assisting Crimes

The crime of assisting refers to the act of knowingly providing technical support, promotion, payment settlement, network storage, communication transmission, and other assistance to others who commit crimes using the internet. In the field of Virtual Money, common acts of assisting crimes include:

1. Assist scam groups in collecting or transferring Virtual Money;
2. Knowingly providing transfer services for illegal funds;
3. Provide a virtual money wallet address for fund transfer.

The key to this crime lies in the "assistance" behavior that directly facilitates cybercrime, without the need to aim for profit.

(2) Typical Application Scenarios of Concealment Crimes

Concealing crime is more focused on helping to deal with criminal proceeds, specifically manifested as the actor knowingly assisting in the transfer, acquisition, holding, exchange, etc. of criminal proceeds or their benefits. Common manifestations include:

1. Acquire virtual money obtained by others through criminal activities;
2. Knowing that it is illegal funds, still engaging in Virtual Money transactions or exchanging for fiat currency;
3. Custody, withdrawal, and other actions.

Concealing crimes emphasizes helping to "digest stolen goods," which is closer to the traditional meaning of "money laundering," with the premise of having a clear understanding of the criminal proceeds.

Therefore, the applicable boundaries of the two crimes lie in the stage at which the act occurs, the object of subjective awareness, and whether the act directly contributes to the success of the crime or deals with the results of the crime afterwards.

3. How to Accurately Distinguish Between Aiding and Abetting Crimes and Concealment Crimes?

Accurately distinguishing between these two offenses requires a comprehensive assessment that combines subjective intent, objective behavior, and case evidence; one cannot simply apply the charges. The following three aspects are crucial:

(1) The subjectively known objects are different.

1. Assisting in Crime: The actor must be aware of "others committing crimes using the internet". That is, they must have a general awareness that others are engaging in illegal online activities and still provide assistance.

2. Concealment Crime: The actor must have knowledge that "the property being handled is derived from a crime." It is not necessary to know the specific details of the original criminal act, but it is sufficient to know that the property or Virtual Money being handled is illegal income.

In other words, the "knowledge" of the crime of assisting in a crime refers to the awareness of the criminal act itself, while the "knowledge" of the crime of concealment refers to the awareness of the proceeds of the crime.

(2) Different time nodes of the behavior occurrence

1. The crime of aiding and abetting often occurs during or before the commission of the crime, playing a "supporting" role;

2. Concealment crimes usually occur after the completion of the crime, serving the purpose of "laundering the proceeds of crime."

For example, assisting criminals in opening a virtual money wallet and participating in the transfer of funds may constitute the crime of aiding and abetting; however, if the crime has been completed, handing over the virtual currency to others for holding or selling may constitute the crime of concealment.

(3) Whether it constitutes a completed crime

Concealment behavior often has a strong causal relationship with the criminal result. For example, without fund transfers, criminal groups cannot process illegal gains. While the crime of assisting involves helping upstream crimes "monetize their earnings," it does not determine whether the upstream crime can be established.

For defense lawyers, the defense can be approached from the following two levels:

1. Evidence Level: Focus on analyzing how the subject obtains Virtual Money, whether the communication records involve upstream crimes, and whether there is an intention to "clean up" the flow of funds.

2. Subjective aspect: If the defendant truly did not know that the upstream behavior was criminal and only knew that "the source of this fund is unclear", it should be considered to apply the crime of aiding and abetting, claiming a "minor offense" treatment.

4. Conclusion

The anonymity, cross-border nature, and decentralization characteristics of Virtual Money increase the difficulty of applying criminal law, blurring the lines between aiding and abetting crimes and concealment crimes. In this context, criminal lawyers in relevant fields should take on the role of "legal interpreters", not only mastering traditional criminal defense techniques but also deeply understanding the technical principles and practical applications of Virtual Money.

From the perspective of criminal policy, the accurate application of light and heavy criminal charges relates to the law's humility and fairness. From the standpoint of personal rights protection, the ability to accurately distinguish between aiding crimes and concealing crimes directly affects the fate of the individuals involved.

With the continuous improvement of judicial practices and the gradual establishment of a legal system for Virtual Money, the application of law in this field will become clearer. However, before that, the distinction of charges in each virtual currency case is a strict test of the professional competence and ethical standards of lawyers.