疑案精解：涉虚拟货币洗钱行为的司法认定

　　作者：刘晓、王涵寒；来源：中国检察官

Author: Liu Xiao, Wang Xiao; source: Chinese Public Prosecutor

　　一、基本案情

I. BASIC PROCEEDINGS

　　2023年3月，肖某在Telegram即时通讯软件上通过搜索有“换U”（USDT泰达币）需求的人，搭识跑分集团负责人“大上海”。肖某在明知“大上海”向其提供的现金可能涉嫌违法犯罪的情况下，仍脱离虚拟货币交易场所，进行虚拟货币场外交易以实现转移、置换赃款的目的。具体行为方式为：“大上海”通过即时通讯软件告知肖某所需兑换现金数量，肖某提前以高于虚拟货币交易平台市场价格2分钱的交易价格与其他卖币人员预先进行场外交易，准备好对应数量的泰达币存储于虚拟货币钱包中，“大上海”安排人员押送“卡农”进行取款操作后完成现金交接，后与肖某临时约定不固定地点（多为停车场、厕所等）见面，在肖某的车上进行虚拟货币交易，由肖某现场对现金进行清点后，按照约定先转100元对应的虚拟货币至“大上海”虚拟货币钱包地址，对方确认收到并确保交易渠道畅通安全后，肖某将剩余需兑换的虚拟货币通过网络钱包转移给“大上海”，肖某以高于虚拟货币交易市场实时交易价格出售泰达币（1USDT币高5分钱）以谋取非法利益。

In March 2023, one of Shaw's heads of sub-groups, “Great Shanghai” by searching for people in need of “U for exchange” (USDT Tedar) on Telegram's instant communication software, left a virtual currency trading place in the knowledge that the cash supplied to him by “Great Shanghai” might be suspected of committing a crime, engaged in a virtual currency off-site transaction for the purpose of transferring and replacing the stolen money. This was done by “Great Shanghai” informing Xiao, through instant communication software, of the amount of cash required to convert cash, a virtual currency transaction at a price of two cents in advance above the market price of the virtual currency trading platform, pre-empted off-site transactions with other money sellers, prepared for storage in a virtual currency wallet, arranged by the “Great Shanghai” to deliver money to the “Cannon” after taking the money, and then met with a temporary agreement (More for parking lots, toilets, etc.) to make a virtual currency transaction on a single vehicle, and to clear the cash on-site, and to transfer the sum of US dollars on-site, as agreed, to the “Monet” to take the foreign currency to the foreign currency, and ensure that the foreign currency on-exchange of the foreign currency is to be sold at a secure channel, and ensure that it will be made at a high.

　　经查，2023年4月25日，“大上海”联系肖某告知需兑换的现金数量，肖某随即与卖币人员联系并按照“大上海”需求的换币数量完成虚拟货币场外进货，等待“大上海”指定交易地点。后“大上海”安排“跑分车队”成员詹某、杨某等人押送“卡农”蔡某线下取款人民币90余万元，随即在厕所内完成现金交接，交接人员携带钱款与肖某分两次在不同停车场见面并完成上述赃款转移。最终，肖某获利6000余元。

On 25 April 2023, “Great Shanghai” contacted Shaw, informing him of the amount of cash to be exchanged, and immediately contacted the money-sellers and completed the off-the-shelf movement in accordance with the amount of currency exchange requirements of “Great Shanghai” pending the designation of a place for the transaction. After that, “Shanghai” arranged for members of the “Run-off” convoy to take the sum of RMB 900,000 below the line of “Cannon” and then completed the cash transfer within the toilet, and the person to whom the money was transferred met twice in different parking lots and the transfer of the proceeds was completed.

　　二、分歧意见

Dissenting views

　　关于肖某行为定性，存在不同意见。第一种意见认为，肖某的行为无罪。肖某主观上对赃款性质不明知。肖某只对接“大上海”一人进行现金—虚拟货币兑换交易，并未参与“跑分集团”或是其上级电信诈骗集团等具体电诈、跑分等商议，对赃款属性达不到明知或者应当明知的程度。另外，虚拟货币是否可以作为犯罪对象或犯罪工具目前存在争议。总所周知，虚拟货币在我国不属于法定可流通货币，不具有与法定货币等同的法律地位。虚拟货币与虚拟游戏币、虚拟游戏装备等本质相同，是一种数字代币或具有数字属性，其是否具有价值，价值怎么计算等，是否可以纳入财产保护的范畴等也不明确。根据“罪刑法定”“疑罪从无”原则，肖某的行为应认定为无罪。

There is a difference of opinion as to the characterization of a Xiao’s conduct. The first view is that Xiao’s conduct is not justified. Shaw does not know the nature of the stolen money in a subjective way.

　　第二种意见认为，肖某的行为具有洗钱性质，结合上游犯罪具体类型样态，应认定构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪。虚拟货币除了数据属性外还具有经济价值，可以通过流转、兑换实现权益，明显具有价值和使用价值，应当纳入财产权证的范畴。肖某对于经手交易的现金系上游犯罪赃款，主观上是明知的。结合犯罪节点判断，上游犯罪业已既遂，肖某通过虚拟货币交易对上游犯罪赃款实现转移，掩盖赃款性质，以达到逃避侦查的目的，妨害了司法机关查明犯罪、追缴犯罪所得，其行为具有洗钱性质。

According to the second view, Xiao’s conduct was of a money-laundering nature and, in conjunction with the specific type of predicate offence, should be deemed to constitute an offence of concealment or concealment of proceeds of crime. Virtual currencies, in addition to their data attributes, had economic value, acquired an interest through trans-shipment, conversion, obvious value and utility, and should be included in the scope of a property rights certificate. Xiao, in the case of cash traded in hand, was the proceeds of a predicate offence and was subjectively aware of it. In the case of crime, the predicate offence was completed and the transfer of the proceeds of the predicate offence through a virtual currency transaction was effected to conceal the nature of the proceeds in order to avoid detection and to prevent the judicial authorities from identifying the offence and recovering the proceeds of crime, whose conduct was of a money-laundering nature.

　　三、评析意见

III. EVALUATION OBSERVATIONS

　　随着区块链等新兴经济形态的兴起，虚拟货币已进入到正常民众的生活，并因其匿名性、快速流转性、可兑换性、难以溯源等特征迅速被一些不法分子利用，实现对违法犯罪财物的洗白、转移。现实中，越来越多的涉虚拟货币犯罪，严重危害社会经济秩序和稳定，需要予以严厉打击。如本案中上游犯罪系电信诈骗团伙，因“两卡”行动有效阻断了大量被骗资金的收取、流转，犯罪团伙遂利用虚拟货币场外交易的方式，实现电信诈骗资金快速转移，甚至实现跨境流转，严重侵害了被害人的财产安全，也为上游电信诈骗犯罪的侦办及追赃挽损工作的开展带来新的挑战和阻碍。本文认为，肖某的行为构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪，具体理由如下：

As a result of the emergence of emerging economic patterns, such as block chains, virtual currency has moved into the lives of normal people and has been rapidly exploited by some outlaws because of its anonymity, rapid flow, convertibility, hard-to-retroactivity, etc., to achieve the clean-up and transfer of criminal assets in violation of the law. In reality, a growing number of crimes involving virtual currency are a serious threat to socio-economic order and stability that need to be severely combated. As in the present case, the predicate offence is a telecommunications fraud group, which, as a result of the “two-card” operation, effectively disrupts the receipt and circulation of large amounts of stolen funds, criminal groups have resorted to the use of virtual currency out-of-the-field transactions to effect the rapid transfer of telecommunication fraud funds, or even cross-border movements, which seriously infringe upon the property security of victims and pose new challenges and obstacles to the detection of upstream telecommunication fraud and the recovery of the proceeds of crime, for the following reasons:

　　（一）虚拟货币作为犯罪对象或工具，应纳入刑法规制、保护范畴

(i) Virtual currency, as the object or instrument of crime, should be included in the legal, regulatory and protective framework

　　司法实践中，对于虚拟货币的刑法属性大致可以归纳为几种意见：一是认为虚拟货币仅仅是一种伴随于区块链技术的电子数据，其本身并不具备货币的价值属性，因此虚拟货币不能算作财物。既然虚拟货币不是财物，也就不受刑法的保护。二是认为虚拟货币类似于网络游戏中的“代币”，具备流通性和财产性。但是虚拟货币的流通多用于替代支付等非法目的，我国也禁止虚拟货币的流通，所以不能将虚拟货币作为受刑法保护的财物。三是虚拟货币属于刑法意义上的财物，虽然虚拟货币时常被用于违法犯罪目的，但是不能因此而否定正常虚拟货币持有人的合法权益。

In judicial practice, the criminal law attributes of virtual currency can be broadly summarized into several observations: one is that virtual currency is merely an electronic data accompanying block-chain technology, and that it does not possess the value attributes of money itself, so that virtual currency cannot be counted as property. Since virtual currency is not property, it is not protected by criminal law.

　　2013年中国人民银行、工业和信息化部部等五部门联合发布《关于防范比特币风险的通知》，明确比特币是一种特定虚拟产品，不具有与货币等同的法律地位，不能且不应作为货币在市场上流通使用。2021年9月，中国人民银行、中央网信办等10部门联合发布《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》，继续明确了所有虚拟货币不能作为货币在市场上流通使用，但同时又明确虚拟货币可作为非法集资等金融活动的犯罪对象。显然，上述文件虽确认虚拟货币在我国不属于法定可流通货币，但并未否定其财产价值、工具价值属性，亦未将其排除在法律保护之外。值得一提的是民法典直接肯定了对数据、网络虚拟财产的认可和保护。随着虚拟货币应用的广泛，尤其直接作为犯罪对象、支付结算工具等涉刑事案件增多，近年来亦相继出台了一系列法律法规、司法解释，如《中华人民共和国反电信网络诈骗法》《关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》《关于办理跨境赌博犯罪案件若干问题的意见》《关于办理电信网络诈骗等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见（二）》，上述规范性文件涉及了对虚拟货币交易炒作风险的防范和处置，对虚拟货币涉案涉罪进行明确规制。因此，无论是民事还是刑事领域，虚拟货币已纳入法律保护的范畴毋庸置疑。

In 2013, five departments, including the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Industry and Informationization, jointly issued a Notice on Protection against the Risk of Bitcoin, which makes it clear that Bitcoin is a specific virtual product, does not have legal status equivalent to that of a currency and cannot and should not be used as a currency on the market. In September 2021, 10 departments, such as the People's Bank of China and the Central Network Office, jointly issued a Notice on the Further Prevention and Disposal of the Risk of Virtual Monetary Transactions, which continues to make it clear that all virtual currencies cannot be used as a currency in the market, but that they can be the object of financial activity, such as illegal capital collection.

　　在刑法中，作为财产犯罪客体的财物是指具有财产性价值的物品。虚拟货币具有财产属性特征，其能够为人所占有、管理和支配，亦可进行流转、兑换、支付使用等。因此，将虚拟货币纳入财产保护范围既符合“财物”的文义理解，也符合大众的认知与期待可能性。虚拟货币的价值认定，直接关系到案件的定罪量刑。司法实践中，虚拟货币作为犯罪对象可能涉及到的罪名包括盗窃、诈骗等典型的侵财类犯罪。虚拟货币作为犯罪工具可能涉及到的罪名有帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪、掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪和洗钱罪等，上述罪名中都绕不开犯罪金额的认定。虚拟货币的价格类似于外汇价格，处于波动状态，但由于其在我国未被认定为法定流通货币，因而也没有中国银行等权威机构出具的外汇指导价、中间汇率等折算标准，实践中缺乏可操作性。有学者认为，虚拟货币价格受市值、交易量、供应量等影响，要综合考虑其流动性、投资价值和实用价值、客观价值、主观价值等确定其价值。亦有学者主张，虚拟财产在现实生活中对应的财产数额，可以参照该虚拟财产在现实生活中实际交易价格来确定。笔者认为，对于涉案虚拟货币已经和现有流通货币进行兑换的情形，可以认定为交易或用于交易的流通货币的金额，同时参考火币网、币安网等比较成熟的虚拟货币交易平台上涉案时间段内，对应币种的兑换价格来判断该认定价值是否合理；在没有兑换的情况下，虚拟货币的价格亦可以参照被害人取得该虚拟货币的成本、被害人的实际损失、虚拟货币交易平台上的对应价值进行认定，从而避免因无法认定虚拟货币价值影响对被害人合法权益的保护和对违法犯罪的打击惩处。同时对以虚拟货币形式扣押在案的犯罪对象或犯罪工具，对于被害人能够提供其合法取得持有依据的，属于被侵害的财物范畴的，可以直接返还或处理。已转换成法定货币的，可直接就转换后的财物进行处置。

In criminal law, property that is the object of a crime is an object of property value. Virtual currency has property attributes that enable it to be transferred, converted and used. Virtual currency is included within the scope of property protection in line with both the semantic understanding of “property” and the possibility of public perception and expectation. The value of virtual money is determined to be directly related to the sentence for conviction in the case. In judicial practice, virtual currency as the object of a crime may be related to a typical financial offence, such as theft, fraud, etc.

　　言及本案，尽管虚拟货币在我国不属于法定可流通货币，不具有与法定货币等同的法律地位。但虚拟货币只是作为一种媒介，被肖某用作为掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得的手段。本案肖某的犯罪手法是事先联系“大上海”，按约赴指定地点收取“大上海”提供的赃款，肖某掩饰、隐瞒的对象正是该赃款。赃款到肖某手里后，肖某将与此等值的虚拟货币打入“大上海”的账户，从而完成将赃款“洗白”的过程。究其本质，虚拟货币在形式上对肖某掩饰、隐瞒赃款起到工具作用，肖某掩饰、隐瞒的对象是赃款而不是虚拟货币。但是计算本案犯罪金额时，虚拟货币在价值上与货币等值，故可以虚拟货币的相关兑换价格来认定实际犯罪金额。

In the case in question, although the virtual currency is not a legally negotiable currency in our country, it does not have the same legal status as the legal currency. Virtual currency is merely used as a medium for concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime.

　　（二）肖某的行为符合掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪的特征

(ii) The conduct of Xiao meets the characteristics of the crime of concealment or concealment of proceeds of crime

　　首先，肖某与“大上海”之间的交易方式过于隐蔽。肖某与“大上海”通过境外聊天软件Telegram线上相识，该软件有别于普通大众聊天软件最显著的特征就是聊天数据不可恢复性。普通软件诸如微信、QQ等国内适用率较高的聊天工具都具备严格风控机制，当聊天内容涉及跑分、炒币、搬U等敏感字眼时，会被系统自动识别出来，进而可能导致账号被封。而境外Telegram等软件具有密聊、阅后即焚等功能，聊天记录也会被自动删除，所删除的信息事后大多无法进行数据恢复，反侦查性极强。国内不法分子正利用该特点，将Telegram软件用作违法犯罪活动的沟通工具，以逃避司法机关的查处。

First of all, Shaw's dealings with the Great Shanghai are too hidden. Shaw's encounter with the Great Shanghai chat software via Telegram, the most prominent feature of which is that it differs from the general public chat software, is the irreversibility of chat data. Common software, such as micro-mail, QQQ, has a strict wind control mechanism. When chatting involves sensitive words such as running points, selling coins, moving U, etc., it is automatically identified by the system, which may result in the closure of accounts. Software such as Telegram outside the country has the ability to chat, read, burn, etc., and chat records are automatically deleted. Most of the deleted information cannot then be recovered, and anti-detective.

　　其次，本案肖某的交易模式明显异常。肖某从事虚拟货币交易多年，其本人供述正常虚拟货币交易都是通过公认度较高的火币网、欧易、币安网等交易平台，上述平台需要本人使用实名认证的交易工具（注册账号后绑定实名认证银行卡等）进行账户交易，且设置诸如：交易当天买卖24小时内不能提币需次日提币、交易需提前提供买家银行流水确保卡内资金沉淀5-7天、交易流水过于频繁可能冻结等交易所规则进行风险管控。肖某在以往与其他人进行虚拟货币正常交易时都是通过上述成熟、可靠的虚拟货币交易平台操作。本案中肖某与“大上海”的交易则故意绕开交易平台而进行场外交易。肖某事先与“大上海”约定好取款地点，然后在指定地点收取赃款，收到赃款后再由肖某将与赃款等值的虚拟货币打入“大上海”提供的虚拟货币钱包。由此可见，肖某与“大上海”系有意脱离虚拟货币交易平台，这么做的目的不是没有考虑到交易的安全性，而是为了规避监管，故意脱离正常的交易平台和交易习惯，从而实现大量资金实时转移。

Second, there is a clear anomaly in the pattern of transactions in this case. Shaw, who has been engaged in virtual currency transactions for many years, has himself stated that normal virtual currency transactions are controlled at risk through exchange rules such as a well-recognized gunnet, Euro, and currency net trading platform, which in the past used to use real-name certified transaction tools such as a real-name certified bank card attached to a registered account. In this case, one transaction with the “Great Shanghai” deliberately bypasss the trading platform by making out a currency in the next 24 hours of the day, the transaction needs to provide pre-existing bank fluids to ensure that the money in question is deposited for 5-7 days, the transaction is too frequent to freeze, the transaction is subject to risk control through exchange rules such as exchange rules.

　　再次，交易有“测卡”环节及获利异常。肖某在与“大上海”进行每笔交易时，均先转移小额面值100元进行安全测试，待确定交易通道正常、没有被拦截、冻结后，再继续高频、大额转账进行虚拟货币交易。“大上海”方人员在与其交易时，均佩戴帽子、口罩等遮蔽物，且有意选择厕所、车上等交易地点以避开监控，不符合正常交易特征。“大上海”与肖某的虚拟货币交易相较于常规的交易平台线上交易，可谓是赔本买卖，其交易价格远高于交易平台当天最高交易价格，其线下交易、现金交易、隐蔽交易、高价交易种种均不符合正常虚拟货币市场交易特点，亦不符合交易常理。

Once again, the transaction has a “card link” and a profit anomaly. For every transaction with the Great Shanghai, Shaw first transfers a small face value of $100 for security tests, pending confirmation that the route is normal, has not been intercepted, frozen, and then continues to be traded in virtual currency with high frequency and large sums of money.

　　最后，肖某系与固定的对象从事虚拟货币交易。每次交易，肖某都是与“大上海”联系，事先讲明取款地点，约定好交易量以及相关交易方式，以向“大上海”提供的虚拟货币钱包打入虚拟货币的方式兑换钱款。可见，肖某所从事的虚拟货币交易并非合法交易，也非正常交易，而是与特定人员事先约定后，以买卖虚拟货币为媒介或手段，帮助特定对象转移或“洗白”资金的行为。

Each transaction is conducted in a virtual currency transaction with a fixed object. Each transaction is made by contacting “Great Shanghai” with a prior indication of the place where the withdrawal is made, an agreement is made on the amount of the transaction and the manner in which the transaction is to be carried out, in order to convert the money into a virtual currency wallet provided by “Great Shanghai”.

　　（三）肖某主观上完全具备推定“明知”的要素

(iii) The element of presumption of “knowing” is fully and subjectively present in Shaw

　　最高法《关于审理洗钱等刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第1条关于“明知”规定：“刑法第一百九十一条、第三百一十二条规定的‘明知’，应当结合被告人的认知能力，接触他人犯罪所得及其收益的情况，犯罪所得及其收益的种类、数额，犯罪所得及其收益的转换、转移方式以及被告人的供述等主、客观因素进行认定。具有下列情形之一的，可以认定被告人明知系犯罪所得及其收益，但有证据证明确实不知道的除外：（一）知道他人从事犯罪活动，协助转换或者转移财物的；（二）没有正当理由，通过非法途径协助转换或者转移财物的；（三）没有正当理由，以明显低于市场的价格收购财物的；（四）没有正当理由，协助转换或者转移财物，收取明显高于市场的‘手续费’的；（五）没有正当理由，协助他人将巨额现金散存于多个银行账户或者在不同银行账户之间频繁划转的；（六）协助近亲属或者其他关系密切的人转换或者转移与其职业或者财产状况明显不符的财物的；（七）其他可以认定行为人明知的情形。”

Article 1 of the Supreme Law on Interpretation of Certain Questions Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in Criminal Cases, such as Money Laundering, provides “knowing”: “The `knowing' provided for in articles 191 and 312 of the Criminal Code shall, in conjunction with the knowledge of the accused, have access to the proceeds of crime of others and their proceeds, the type, amount of the proceeds of crime and their proceeds, the mode of conversion, transfer of the proceeds of crime and their confessions of the accused, etc., are determined by objective factors such as: (i) knowing that he or she has committed a criminal activity to assist in the conversion or transfer of property; (ii) assisting in the conversion or transfer of property by illegal means; (iii) obtaining property at a price significantly lower than that of the market; (iv) assisting in the conversion or transfer of property and collecting a “proceedial fee” significantly higher than that of the market; (v) assisting others in distributing large amounts of cash to multiple bank accounts or in frequent transfers between different bank accounts is not justified; (vi) assisting close relatives or other persons close to a close relationship in the transfer or transfer of property that is clearly incompatible with their professional or property status; (vii) knowing of the perpetrator.”

　　对照上述司法解释，不难看出肖某在与对方缺乏信任基础的前提下，故意绕开较为成熟的虚拟货币交易场所，采取隐蔽软件联系、隐蔽地点接头的方式收取对方钱款，后将所收到的钱款以虚拟货币的形式打入对方账户。简而言之，肖某意识到对方的交易形式和交易要求有悖于常规交易习惯，依旧为对方提供货币兑换虚拟货币的服务。从客观行为而言，肖某的做法有悖普通交易习惯，有违常理；从主观推定而言，肖某在供述中承认自己从事虚拟货币交易多年，正常虚拟货币交易都是通过公认度较高的火币网、欧易、币安网等交易平台。由此可以推定，肖某明知自己的行为不符合虚拟货币通常交易习惯，还是以明显异于市场的价格和行为方式进行交易，谋取非法利益。同时，在案证据能够证实肖某从中获利人民币6000余元。试想一下，仅仅提供虚拟货币与货币之间的兑换服务显然不可能获得如此“厚利”，该获利明显属于上述司法解释第（四）项“没有正当理由，协助转换或者转移财物，收取明显高于市场的‘手续费’”。因此，结合肖某本人的认知能力、炒币经历，其以明显异于市场的交易模式、价格进行虚拟货币交易，又无法对上述异常行为作出合理解释，可以认定肖某明知系犯罪所得仍通过非法途径协助转换或者转移财物。

In contrast to the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, it is easy to see that a person deliberately bypasses a more mature virtual currency trading place, without a foundation of trust with the other party, by accepting, in a subjective presumption, that he has been engaged in virtual currency transactions for many years, using hidden software connections, hidden locations to receive money in the form of a virtual currency. In short, one realizes that the other person’s transactions and transaction requirements are contrary to the normal course of the transaction and continues to provide the other party with a currency exchange service.

　　综上，肖某的行为构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪。2023年11月，法院以肖某构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪判处其有期徒刑3年3个月，并处罚金人民币1万元。

In November 2023, the court sentenced Shao to three years and three months of imprisonment and a fine of ten thousand yuan for the crime of covering up and concealing the proceeds of crime.

责任编辑：张靖笛