LIVECrypto Hub
@Square-Creator-4606f1469
前交易所资深PM，现web3 lawyer，普法微信公众号：初焱
专注于创新项目研究、链上数据挖掘、监管政策解读
Following
Followers
Liked
Shared
See original
PINNED
Trending
The WLD project sells tokens at market price OTC?
Source: worldcoin official website
On April 23, 2024, Worldcoin officially announced that it would sell WLD tokens to institutions at a price close to the market price, but the sales quantity was not announced. However, Bybit top trader DeFi^2 (@DefiSquared) revealed that the Worldcoin Foundation would sell an additional $200 million worth of tokens to trading companies. After the news was released, the price of WLD fell sharply, and some large investors began to charge WLD into the exchange to liquidate their positions. So what is the real situation of the WLD project selling tokens at present? The following will be analyzed through on-chain data.
Since the announcement was released, there have been multiple large transfers from the multi-signature address 0x59a of the wld project. Part of the transferred wld flowed into the multi-signature address 0xE79 controlled by another project party, and part of it crossed the chain and entered the OP.
On April 23, 2024, Worldcoin officially announced that it would sell WLD tokens to institutions at a price close to the market price, but the sales quantity was not announced. However, Bybit top trader DeFi^2 (@DefiSquared) revealed that the Worldcoin Foundation would sell an additional $200 million worth of tokens to trading companies. After the news was released, the price of WLD fell sharply, and some large investors began to charge WLD into the exchange to liquidate their positions. So what is the real situation of the WLD project selling tokens at present? The following will be analyzed through on-chain data.
Since the announcement was released, there have been multiple large transfers from the multi-signature address 0x59a of the wld project. Part of the transferred wld flowed into the multi-signature address 0xE79 controlled by another project party, and part of it crossed the chain and entered the OP.
See original
PINNED
Analyzing the crash of 49,800 BTC confiscated in a US dark web fraud case through on-chain data
Early this morning, the address marked as Silk Road DOJ Confiscated Funds by Arkham transferred 29,800 BTC to two new addresses, bc1qla and bc1qng.
Through on-chain tracing, we can see that the total number of confiscated BTC is 49,800, which was transferred from the address of the suspect JAMES ZHONG to the US government's special case custody address on March 25, 2022.
The website of the U.S. Department of Justice shows that the BTC confiscated by the U.S. Department of Justice originated from a wire fraud case in September 2012. According to the description of the U.S. prosecutor, James Zhong stole 50,000 bitcoins from Silk Road through wire fraud. In the next 10 years, he managed to conceal his actions and the source of his wealth. Zhong used decentralized bitcoin mixers, overseas cryptocurrency exchanges, and an impressive array of technical tools to thwart tracking efforts. But thanks to the law enforcement agencies’ unremitting and skilled efforts in tracking funds, the federal government discovered Zhong’s conspiracy and eventually obtained the confiscation of more than 51,680 bitcoins.
Through on-chain tracing, we can see that the total number of confiscated BTC is 49,800, which was transferred from the address of the suspect JAMES ZHONG to the US government's special case custody address on March 25, 2022.
The website of the U.S. Department of Justice shows that the BTC confiscated by the U.S. Department of Justice originated from a wire fraud case in September 2012. According to the description of the U.S. prosecutor, James Zhong stole 50,000 bitcoins from Silk Road through wire fraud. In the next 10 years, he managed to conceal his actions and the source of his wealth. Zhong used decentralized bitcoin mixers, overseas cryptocurrency exchanges, and an impressive array of technical tools to thwart tracking efforts. But thanks to the law enforcement agencies’ unremitting and skilled efforts in tracking funds, the federal government discovered Zhong’s conspiracy and eventually obtained the confiscation of more than 51,680 bitcoins.
See original
OTC Merchant Capital Composition Cases of Assisting Crime in the Cryptocurrency Circle (Part II)
Case Number: (2022) Xiang 0281 Criminal First Instance 484
Between November 2021 and July 2022, the defendants, Su Certain and others, sought illegal profits. Knowing that others were using xx exchange to commit online criminal activities, they still registered merchant accounts and bound bank cards, collectively buying U at low prices and selling at high prices, helping others transfer illegal funds. During this period, the defendants successively registered platform accounts using the identity information of team members and used others' bank cards, buying low and selling high in virtual currency to transfer funds. The bank cards used in the process had all been frozen. Anti-fraud big data shows that the bank accounts of team members were all linked to the fraudulent funds.
From October 2021 to March 2022, Yao Certain downloaded software such as “WHDC” and xx exchange as instructed by the scammers, bought coins through the exchange, and transferred them to “WHDC” for investment, losing over 300,000 yuan. Some of the funds were directly transferred to bank cards within the team.
The court believes that Su Certain was the first to engage in OTC and that his bank cards had been frozen multiple times due to suspected fraud and other illegal activities. The testimonies of the defendants all proved that Su Certain clearly informed them before other defendants joined that there was a lot of dirty money on xx exchange, and that “buying low and selling high” could be “profitable without loss,” but that the bank cards could be frozen. To gain illegal profits, all defendants, knowing that virtual currency trading and speculation are illegal financial activities, still registered merchant accounts in the form of a “studio” and specifically engaged in OTC trading. In cases where their own or others' bank cards were frozen or suspected of illegal activities, they did not take effective remedial measures; instead, they continued trading by changing bank cards or platform accounts. They should be recognized as knowingly allowing others to commit crimes using information networks. Their self-assessment of the trading parties and funds does not affect the classification of the behavior and can only be considered as a factor in determining subjective malice.
In judicial practice, in cases where bank cards have been frozen multiple times due to involvement in fraud and other illegal activities, if effective remedial measures are not taken to explain the situation to public security organs and other departments, or to unfreeze, but instead bank cards and exchange accounts are changed to continue trading, it is determined to fall under points 2, 3, and 4 in the above “Meeting Minutes,” constituting knowledge. #你问我答
Case Number: (2022) Xiang 0281 Criminal First Instance 484
Between November 2021 and July 2022, the defendants, Su Certain and others, sought illegal profits. Knowing that others were using xx exchange to commit online criminal activities, they still registered merchant accounts and bound bank cards, collectively buying U at low prices and selling at high prices, helping others transfer illegal funds. During this period, the defendants successively registered platform accounts using the identity information of team members and used others' bank cards, buying low and selling high in virtual currency to transfer funds. The bank cards used in the process had all been frozen. Anti-fraud big data shows that the bank accounts of team members were all linked to the fraudulent funds.
From October 2021 to March 2022, Yao Certain downloaded software such as “WHDC” and xx exchange as instructed by the scammers, bought coins through the exchange, and transferred them to “WHDC” for investment, losing over 300,000 yuan. Some of the funds were directly transferred to bank cards within the team.
The court believes that Su Certain was the first to engage in OTC and that his bank cards had been frozen multiple times due to suspected fraud and other illegal activities. The testimonies of the defendants all proved that Su Certain clearly informed them before other defendants joined that there was a lot of dirty money on xx exchange, and that “buying low and selling high” could be “profitable without loss,” but that the bank cards could be frozen. To gain illegal profits, all defendants, knowing that virtual currency trading and speculation are illegal financial activities, still registered merchant accounts in the form of a “studio” and specifically engaged in OTC trading. In cases where their own or others' bank cards were frozen or suspected of illegal activities, they did not take effective remedial measures; instead, they continued trading by changing bank cards or platform accounts. They should be recognized as knowingly allowing others to commit crimes using information networks. Their self-assessment of the trading parties and funds does not affect the classification of the behavior and can only be considered as a factor in determining subjective malice.
In judicial practice, in cases where bank cards have been frozen multiple times due to involvement in fraud and other illegal activities, if effective remedial measures are not taken to explain the situation to public security organs and other departments, or to unfreeze, but instead bank cards and exchange accounts are changed to continue trading, it is determined to fall under points 2, 3, and 4 in the above “Meeting Minutes,” constituting knowledge. #你问我答
See original
Cases of Retail Investors in the Cryptocurrency Market Involving Assisting Crimes (I)
Case Number: (2024) Min 0821 Criminal Initial 128
From October 2021 to April 2022, the defendant Shi XX utilized three bank accounts under his name, three bank accounts under Zeng XX's name, and five bank accounts provided by Cai XX, fully aware that others were committing crimes using information networks. In order to obtain illegal profits, he still provided assistance in payment settlement through buying and selling virtual currencies. According to statistics, the total amount settled through the aforementioned bank accounts reached over 20.88 million yuan, and after querying the national anti-fraud big data platform, it was found that the funds were associated with fraud-level card funds amounting to 53,999 yuan. The defendant Shi XX illegally profited over 60,000 yuan from this.
It was also found that: 1. The two defendants sold USDT to counterparts on the trading platform, who were known as “Beauty Loves Smoke” and “Li Bing” (identity to be verified); 2. After querying the national anti-fraud big data platform, it was found that the involved fraudulent funds of 53,999 yuan flowed into a primary account, which was then mixed with other funds of unknown nature from secondary and tertiary accounts, and subsequently transferred to a fourth-level account, namely Chen XX's involved bank account.
The court held that after the defendant publicly issued a notice on September 24, 2021, titled “Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks of Speculating in Virtual Currency Transactions,” which explicitly prohibited related illegal financial activities, he still engaged in the practice of reselling virtual currency at high prices to specific counterparts, deriving a “price difference” that was clearly different from market trading norms, and formed a long-term, stable cooperative model with the counterpart. This should be recognized as knowingly providing payment settlement assistance for others committing crimes using information networks; moreover, the payment settlement amounts provided by the two defendants exceeded 1 million yuan, reaching 20.88 million yuan and over 3.155 million yuan respectively, which constituted serious circumstances and amounted to assisting in crimes related to information networks.
In this case, the two defendants were recognized as having knowledge primarily because they sold USDT at high prices to specific two counterparts on the trading platform in exchange for RMB, obtaining a price difference that clearly deviated from market trading norms. This falls under the third point of Article 11 of the above “Interpretation,” where the transaction price and method are clearly abnormal. Normal cryptocurrency withdrawal transactions are conducted through OTC markets by selecting trading counterparts and trading at prices near the market. The trading behaviors of the two defendants in this case were clearly different, and the court recognized their knowledge. #你问我答
Case Number: (2024) Min 0821 Criminal Initial 128
From October 2021 to April 2022, the defendant Shi XX utilized three bank accounts under his name, three bank accounts under Zeng XX's name, and five bank accounts provided by Cai XX, fully aware that others were committing crimes using information networks. In order to obtain illegal profits, he still provided assistance in payment settlement through buying and selling virtual currencies. According to statistics, the total amount settled through the aforementioned bank accounts reached over 20.88 million yuan, and after querying the national anti-fraud big data platform, it was found that the funds were associated with fraud-level card funds amounting to 53,999 yuan. The defendant Shi XX illegally profited over 60,000 yuan from this.
It was also found that: 1. The two defendants sold USDT to counterparts on the trading platform, who were known as “Beauty Loves Smoke” and “Li Bing” (identity to be verified); 2. After querying the national anti-fraud big data platform, it was found that the involved fraudulent funds of 53,999 yuan flowed into a primary account, which was then mixed with other funds of unknown nature from secondary and tertiary accounts, and subsequently transferred to a fourth-level account, namely Chen XX's involved bank account.
The court held that after the defendant publicly issued a notice on September 24, 2021, titled “Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks of Speculating in Virtual Currency Transactions,” which explicitly prohibited related illegal financial activities, he still engaged in the practice of reselling virtual currency at high prices to specific counterparts, deriving a “price difference” that was clearly different from market trading norms, and formed a long-term, stable cooperative model with the counterpart. This should be recognized as knowingly providing payment settlement assistance for others committing crimes using information networks; moreover, the payment settlement amounts provided by the two defendants exceeded 1 million yuan, reaching 20.88 million yuan and over 3.155 million yuan respectively, which constituted serious circumstances and amounted to assisting in crimes related to information networks.
In this case, the two defendants were recognized as having knowledge primarily because they sold USDT at high prices to specific two counterparts on the trading platform in exchange for RMB, obtaining a price difference that clearly deviated from market trading norms. This falls under the third point of Article 11 of the above “Interpretation,” where the transaction price and method are clearly abnormal. Normal cryptocurrency withdrawal transactions are conducted through OTC markets by selecting trading counterparts and trading at prices near the market. The trading behaviors of the two defendants in this case were clearly different, and the court recognized their knowledge. #你问我答
See original
Just now, the on-chain data analysis platform Arkham announced that it will be launched within a week.
One day ago, the Coinbase Prime institutional deposit address received 7 million AKRM worth 11.97 million US dollars, which was then dispersed into two new addresses. #arkm $ARKM
One day ago, the Coinbase Prime institutional deposit address received 7 million AKRM worth 11.97 million US dollars, which was then dispersed into two new addresses. #arkm $ARKM
See original
Trump promised to protect the rights of American citizens to own and custody digital assets. Compared with the risk of self-assumption, the difficulty of filing criminal cases, and the fact that civil cases are not accepted by the court...#特朗普加密政策承诺 #BTC创历史新高 #山寨季将至？
See original
Which retail investors in the cryptocurrency circle are prone to the crime of aiding and abetting when depositing and withdrawing funds? (III)
The Minutes of the Meeting on the Application of Laws in the "Card Cutting" Operation stipulates that in determining whether the perpetrator "knows" that others use information networks to commit crimes, the principle of consistency between the subjective and objective factors should be adhered to, that is, the perpetrator's cognitive ability, past experience, transaction objects, relationship with the perpetrator of information network crimes, time and method of providing technical support or assistance, profit situation, number of times, number of "two cards" rented or sold, and the perpetrator's confession and other subjective and objective factors should be combined, and at the same time, attention should be paid to listening to the perpetrator's defense and making a comprehensive determination based on whether his defense is reasonable or not.
In handling cases, it is necessary to prevent one-sided reliance on the perpetrator's confession to determine knowledge; it is also necessary to avoid simple objective attribution of guilt, and directly determine knowledge based on the perpetrator's behavior of selling "two cards".
When handling a case, we will focus on examining whether the following characteristics exist, and make a judgment on whether it constitutes "knowingly" based on the evidence of the case:
(1) Cross-provincial or group-based batch processing, purchase, and sale of "two cards";
(2) After renting or selling "two cards", the perpetrator receives oral or written notices from public security organs, banking financial institutions, non-bank payment institutions, telecommunications service providers and other relevant units and departments, informing them that the "two cards" they rented or sold are suspected of fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they do not take remedial measures and continue to rent or sell them;
(3) The "two cards" they rented or sold were frozen due to suspected fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they helped to unfreeze them, or cancelled the old cards, applied for new cards, and continued to rent or sell them;
(4) The online accounts with payment and settlement functions they rented or sold were sealed due to suspected fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they helped to unblock them and continued to provide them to others for use;
(5) Frequent use of hidden Internet access, encrypted communications, data destruction or false identities to evade supervision or avoid investigation;
(6) Collusion in advance to design a response to the investigation;
(7) Those who have been punished or given credit penalties or admonitions for illegal transactions of "two cards" and then purchased, sold or rented "two cards".
#你问我答
The Minutes of the Meeting on the Application of Laws in the "Card Cutting" Operation stipulates that in determining whether the perpetrator "knows" that others use information networks to commit crimes, the principle of consistency between the subjective and objective factors should be adhered to, that is, the perpetrator's cognitive ability, past experience, transaction objects, relationship with the perpetrator of information network crimes, time and method of providing technical support or assistance, profit situation, number of times, number of "two cards" rented or sold, and the perpetrator's confession and other subjective and objective factors should be combined, and at the same time, attention should be paid to listening to the perpetrator's defense and making a comprehensive determination based on whether his defense is reasonable or not.
In handling cases, it is necessary to prevent one-sided reliance on the perpetrator's confession to determine knowledge; it is also necessary to avoid simple objective attribution of guilt, and directly determine knowledge based on the perpetrator's behavior of selling "two cards".
When handling a case, we will focus on examining whether the following characteristics exist, and make a judgment on whether it constitutes "knowingly" based on the evidence of the case:
(1) Cross-provincial or group-based batch processing, purchase, and sale of "two cards";
(2) After renting or selling "two cards", the perpetrator receives oral or written notices from public security organs, banking financial institutions, non-bank payment institutions, telecommunications service providers and other relevant units and departments, informing them that the "two cards" they rented or sold are suspected of fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they do not take remedial measures and continue to rent or sell them;
(3) The "two cards" they rented or sold were frozen due to suspected fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they helped to unfreeze them, or cancelled the old cards, applied for new cards, and continued to rent or sell them;
(4) The online accounts with payment and settlement functions they rented or sold were sealed due to suspected fraud, money laundering and other illegal crimes, but they helped to unblock them and continued to provide them to others for use;
(5) Frequent use of hidden Internet access, encrypted communications, data destruction or false identities to evade supervision or avoid investigation;
(6) Collusion in advance to design a response to the investigation;
(7) Those who have been punished or given credit penalties or admonitions for illegal transactions of "two cards" and then purchased, sold or rented "two cards".
#你问我答
See original
Which cryptocurrency retail investors are prone to the crime of aiding and abetting when making deposits and withdrawals? (II)
Due to domestic supervision, cryptocurrency retail investors often use social chat software such as Twitter X and TG Group to learn about industry information and exchange information about cryptocurrency trading with group members. Chat records in TG can be deleted directly locally. Some cryptocurrency users will get to know group members through the TG cryptocurrency exchange group and complete OTC transactions directly on it.
Once the card is frozen due to the receipt of funds from unknown sources and is investigated by the public security organs, the use of TG may be considered as knowing because the chat records can be destroyed and belong to encrypted communication, which falls under Article 11, Point 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assisting Information Network Crimes. There are also cryptocurrency users who use the purchased KYC registered account to trade in cryptocurrency. This situation may also be considered as using a false identity to evade supervision or investigation in Point 5 of the Interpretation.
Relevant laws and regulations:
Article 11 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assistance to Information Network Crimes" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation") clearly stipulates this subjective knowledge. If a person provides technical support or assistance to others to commit crimes, and has any of the following circumstances, he may be deemed to have known that others used information networks to commit crimes, except where there is evidence to the contrary:
(i) He still carries out the relevant behavior after being informed by the regulatory department;
(ii) He fails to perform his statutory management duties after receiving a report;
(iii) The transaction price or method is obviously abnormal;
(iv) He provides programs, tools or other technical support and assistance specifically used for illegal crimes;
(v) He frequently uses hidden Internet access, encrypted communications, data destruction and other measures or uses false identities to evade supervision or circumvent investigations;
(vi) He provides technical support and assistance to others to evade supervision or circumvent investigations;
(vii) Other circumstances sufficient to determine that the person knew.
#11月市场预测
#你问我答
Due to domestic supervision, cryptocurrency retail investors often use social chat software such as Twitter X and TG Group to learn about industry information and exchange information about cryptocurrency trading with group members. Chat records in TG can be deleted directly locally. Some cryptocurrency users will get to know group members through the TG cryptocurrency exchange group and complete OTC transactions directly on it.
Once the card is frozen due to the receipt of funds from unknown sources and is investigated by the public security organs, the use of TG may be considered as knowing because the chat records can be destroyed and belong to encrypted communication, which falls under Article 11, Point 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assisting Information Network Crimes. There are also cryptocurrency users who use the purchased KYC registered account to trade in cryptocurrency. This situation may also be considered as using a false identity to evade supervision or investigation in Point 5 of the Interpretation.
Relevant laws and regulations:
Article 11 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assistance to Information Network Crimes" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation") clearly stipulates this subjective knowledge. If a person provides technical support or assistance to others to commit crimes, and has any of the following circumstances, he may be deemed to have known that others used information networks to commit crimes, except where there is evidence to the contrary:
(i) He still carries out the relevant behavior after being informed by the regulatory department;
(ii) He fails to perform his statutory management duties after receiving a report;
(iii) The transaction price or method is obviously abnormal;
(iv) He provides programs, tools or other technical support and assistance specifically used for illegal crimes;
(v) He frequently uses hidden Internet access, encrypted communications, data destruction and other measures or uses false identities to evade supervision or circumvent investigations;
(vi) He provides technical support and assistance to others to evade supervision or circumvent investigations;
(vii) Other circumstances sufficient to determine that the person knew.
#11月市场预测
#你问我答
See original
Which cryptocurrency retail investors are prone to involvement in aiding and abetting crimes when entering or withdrawing funds? (1)
Article 287 of the Criminal Law states that if a person knowingly provides internet access, server hosting, network storage, communication transmission, or other technical support for others committing crimes using information networks, or provides advertising, promotion, payment settlement, and other assistance, and the circumstances are severe, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or criminal detention, and may also be fined or subjected to a single penalty of a fine.
Whether one knows is the key to constituting aiding and abetting crimes.
Article 11 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assisting Information Network Crimes" clearly stipulates that if a person provides technical support or assistance for others committing crimes, and falls under any of the following circumstances, it can be determined that the person knowingly facilitated the crime using information networks, except where there is contrary evidence:
(1) Continuing to engage in relevant behaviors after being informed by regulatory authorities;
(2) Failing to fulfill statutory management responsibilities after receiving reports;
(3) Transaction prices or methods are obviously abnormal;
(4) Providing programs, tools, or other technical support specifically for illegal activities;
(5) Frequently using covert internet access, encrypted communication, data destruction, or using false identities to evade regulation or investigation;
(6) Providing technical support or assistance for others to evade regulation or investigation;
(7) Other circumstances sufficient to determine that the person is aware.
The third point mentions that "transaction prices or methods are obviously abnormal" will be recognized as the person's knowledge. If a cash transaction method is adopted when withdrawing funds and the transaction price significantly deviates from the exchange's OTC market prices or uses payment methods that ordinary cryptocurrency traders do not commonly use, some local public security authorities may consider it to constitute subjective knowledge.
Therefore, while cash transactions in OTC trading may appear more covert and reduce the likelihood of frozen accounts, if discovered by public security investigations, it may be recognized as knowledge, thus increasing the criminal risk of constituting aiding and abetting crimes.
Cryptocurrency retail investors should remember not to take advantage of trading prices in OTC transactions with netizens; if the price difference deviates too much from the market price, it may also be recognized by public security authorities as knowledge! #11月市场预测 #你问我答
Article 287 of the Criminal Law states that if a person knowingly provides internet access, server hosting, network storage, communication transmission, or other technical support for others committing crimes using information networks, or provides advertising, promotion, payment settlement, and other assistance, and the circumstances are severe, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or criminal detention, and may also be fined or subjected to a single penalty of a fine.
Whether one knows is the key to constituting aiding and abetting crimes.
Article 11 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assisting Information Network Crimes" clearly stipulates that if a person provides technical support or assistance for others committing crimes, and falls under any of the following circumstances, it can be determined that the person knowingly facilitated the crime using information networks, except where there is contrary evidence:
(1) Continuing to engage in relevant behaviors after being informed by regulatory authorities;
(2) Failing to fulfill statutory management responsibilities after receiving reports;
(3) Transaction prices or methods are obviously abnormal;
(4) Providing programs, tools, or other technical support specifically for illegal activities;
(5) Frequently using covert internet access, encrypted communication, data destruction, or using false identities to evade regulation or investigation;
(6) Providing technical support or assistance for others to evade regulation or investigation;
(7) Other circumstances sufficient to determine that the person is aware.
The third point mentions that "transaction prices or methods are obviously abnormal" will be recognized as the person's knowledge. If a cash transaction method is adopted when withdrawing funds and the transaction price significantly deviates from the exchange's OTC market prices or uses payment methods that ordinary cryptocurrency traders do not commonly use, some local public security authorities may consider it to constitute subjective knowledge.
Therefore, while cash transactions in OTC trading may appear more covert and reduce the likelihood of frozen accounts, if discovered by public security investigations, it may be recognized as knowledge, thus increasing the criminal risk of constituting aiding and abetting crimes.
Cryptocurrency retail investors should remember not to take advantage of trading prices in OTC transactions with netizens; if the price difference deviates too much from the market price, it may also be recognized by public security authorities as knowledge! #11月市场预测 #你问我答
See original
Last night, a suspected DWF address deposited 300,000 lit into Binance. DWF holds a total of 3,000,000 lit, with part coming from the litentry cross-chain bridge a year ago and the other half coming from the lit project address. Therefore, these coins may belong to the market-making funds transferred from the project party to DWF.
In February of this year, DWF deposited 700,000 lit worth 850,000 US dollars into Binance, after which the project's increase in the following month exceeded 50%. $LIT #DWF
In February of this year, DWF deposited 700,000 lit worth 850,000 US dollars into Binance, after which the project's increase in the following month exceeded 50%. $LIT #DWF
See original
OTC for retail investors in the cryptocurrency market, please refuse off-platform trading withdrawals (high risk)!
Many cryptocurrency users contact buyers for off-platform trading through various social media such as WeChat groups and TG groups. As shown in the picture above, buyers contacted through various off-platform means have not been certified or reviewed by the platform, and there are no professional risk control measures in place. As a cryptocurrency trader, you do not know what the USDT buyer transferring money to you is actually doing, where their funds come from, and they are in a situation that is not vetted by the platform, with unknown sources of funds and unknown identities.
The trading counterpart you claim to have met in trading groups or Douyin live broadcasts is likely to be a suspect involved in fraud, money laundering, or online gambling cases, transferring illicit funds into your bank account in exchange for USDT to evade investigation and freezing by law enforcement, shifting the criminal risk onto you.
In addition, some cryptocurrency users mistakenly believe that using offline cash payments can circumvent the risk of card freezing. Although this method may increase the difficulty for law enforcement agencies to investigate, if such abnormal trading behavior is discovered, it may be impossible to restore the transaction truth during the investigation, potentially exposing these users to greater criminal risks. #你问我答
Many cryptocurrency users contact buyers for off-platform trading through various social media such as WeChat groups and TG groups. As shown in the picture above, buyers contacted through various off-platform means have not been certified or reviewed by the platform, and there are no professional risk control measures in place. As a cryptocurrency trader, you do not know what the USDT buyer transferring money to you is actually doing, where their funds come from, and they are in a situation that is not vetted by the platform, with unknown sources of funds and unknown identities.
The trading counterpart you claim to have met in trading groups or Douyin live broadcasts is likely to be a suspect involved in fraud, money laundering, or online gambling cases, transferring illicit funds into your bank account in exchange for USDT to evade investigation and freezing by law enforcement, shifting the criminal risk onto you.
In addition, some cryptocurrency users mistakenly believe that using offline cash payments can circumvent the risk of card freezing. Although this method may increase the difficulty for law enforcement agencies to investigate, if such abnormal trading behavior is discovered, it may be impossible to restore the transaction truth during the investigation, potentially exposing these users to greater criminal risks. #你问我答
See original
BANANA will unlock approximately 250,000 tokens at 8 AM Beijing time on November 8, accounting for 7.21% of the current circulation, valued at approximately 11.7 million USD;
The tokenomics of BANANA shows that there are 4.5 million tokens in the treasury that will vest linearly over 2 years, with 250,000 tokens per month. On-chain data shows that the address holding the most tokens, 0xDb, currently holds 3.98 million tokens. This address transferred 250,000 BANANA worth 10 million USD to the project treasury address on September 15.
#BANANA、ADA、ENA大额解锁
$BANANA
The tokenomics of BANANA shows that there are 4.5 million tokens in the treasury that will vest linearly over 2 years, with 250,000 tokens per month. On-chain data shows that the address holding the most tokens, 0xDb, currently holds 3.98 million tokens. This address transferred 250,000 BANANA worth 10 million USD to the project treasury address on September 15.
#BANANA、ADA、ENA大额解锁
$BANANA
See original
Analyzing the Legal Risks of KOL Promotion in the Crypto Space through the MEME Project SHAR RUG
Recently, the memecoin SHAR on the Solana chain saw its market value exceed 50 million USD within an hour of its launch, but a sell order worth 3.4 million USD from address CHj3v...o5e caused SHAR's price to plummet.
SHAR Price Chart
On social media X, on-chain detective @ZachXBT revealed the Deck of the SHAR project, stating that more than 50 top KOLs would join and collaborate with at least 40 traders. After SHAR's plummet, the community began to criticize the KOLs involved in paid promotions and organized their own rights protection groups. In this article, I will discuss the legal risks of KOLs participating in project token promotions in the crypto space.
SHAR Price Chart
On social media X, on-chain detective @ZachXBT revealed the Deck of the SHAR project, stating that more than 50 top KOLs would join and collaborate with at least 40 traders. After SHAR's plummet, the community began to criticize the KOLs involved in paid promotions and organized their own rights protection groups. In this article, I will discuss the legal risks of KOLs participating in project token promotions in the crypto space.
See original
Discussing why cryptocurrency withdrawals are prone to involve assistance to crime in conjunction with case studies
With USDT and other virtual currencies being increasingly used by criminal groups to transfer and conceal illicit funds, many trading users may receive various illicit funds when withdrawing. More seriously, this may involve criminal risks such as assistance to crime. Today, the author discusses why cryptocurrency trading users easily involve assistance to crimes during withdrawals from the perspective of OTC business and in combination with cases.
1. Two common withdrawal methods and business processes
The common withdrawal methods for ordinary users mainly include withdrawing through centralized exchanges like Binance, OKX (OKX), and off-exchange transactions. The main difference between the two is whether they go through the exchange as an intermediary.
1. Two common withdrawal methods and business processes
The common withdrawal methods for ordinary users mainly include withdrawing through centralized exchanges like Binance, OKX (OKX), and off-exchange transactions. The main difference between the two is whether they go through the exchange as an intermediary.
See original
The US government is going to sell another $4.4 billion worth of BTC?
According to Arkham statistics, the US government currently owns a total of 203,000 BTC. The BTC seized involved two cases involving Silk Road. The first case involved 69,370 BTC from drug sales on Silk Road, which were confiscated from a hacker named "Individual X". The other case involved James ZHONG illegally obtaining about 50,000 bitcoins from the dark web Silk Road through technical means in September 2012. In addition, there are 94,643 BTC confiscated in the investigation of the Bitfinex exchange due to hacker attacks.
Today's news revealed that the US Supreme Court approved the US government to sell the seized BTC worth $4.4 billion that was confiscated from a hacker named "Individual X".
Today's news revealed that the US Supreme Court approved the US government to sell the seized BTC worth $4.4 billion that was confiscated from a hacker named "Individual X".
See original
The possible criminal penalties that CZ may face in China
On September 28, 2024, more than four months later, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao CZ posted a status "gm" on Twitter, announcing that he had regained his freedom.
and
On the 29th, he expressed his gratitude to everyone through a long Twitter post, saying that Binance had done a good job during his absence. He also revealed to the outside world that the Giggle Academy he founded before going to prison was progressing smoothly, and that he would continue to invest in blockchain, decentralized technology, AI, and biotechnology in the future, and would spend more energy and money on charity and education.
1. The past and present of the CZ case
Relevant documents disclosed by the U.S. Department of Justice show that Binance has attracted a large number of American users since its establishment in 2017. According to relevant U.S. laws and regulations, to provide services to U.S. customers, it is necessary to register with FinCEN (the department of the U.S. Treasury responsible for combating financial crimes) and comply with relevant anti-money laundering regulations, but Binance has not implemented effective measures in compliance procedures such as anti-money laundering. In order to retain some American VIP users, Binance took the initiative to help these customers evade regulation. Between August 2017 and October 2022, U.S. users conducted trillions of dollars worth of transactions on Binance, generating more than $1.6 billion in profits for the platform.
and
On the 29th, he expressed his gratitude to everyone through a long Twitter post, saying that Binance had done a good job during his absence. He also revealed to the outside world that the Giggle Academy he founded before going to prison was progressing smoothly, and that he would continue to invest in blockchain, decentralized technology, AI, and biotechnology in the future, and would spend more energy and money on charity and education.
1. The past and present of the CZ case
Relevant documents disclosed by the U.S. Department of Justice show that Binance has attracted a large number of American users since its establishment in 2017. According to relevant U.S. laws and regulations, to provide services to U.S. customers, it is necessary to register with FinCEN (the department of the U.S. Treasury responsible for combating financial crimes) and comply with relevant anti-money laundering regulations, but Binance has not implemented effective measures in compliance procedures such as anti-money laundering. In order to retain some American VIP users, Binance took the initiative to help these customers evade regulation. Between August 2017 and October 2022, U.S. users conducted trillions of dollars worth of transactions on Binance, generating more than $1.6 billion in profits for the platform.
See original
Combined with the case, we deeply reveal the MBI Group's major currency pyramid scheme and the legal risks derived from it
Today, various media reported that the Chinese police extradited a major economic crime suspect named Zhang from Thailand. Since 2012, the MBI Group headed by the suspect Zhang has been carrying out illegal online pyramid schemes by issuing virtual currency.
The case involved more than 10 million members and more than 100 billion RMB in funds, far exceeding the Plus token case in terms of both the number of people involved and the amount of money involved. Below, the author will analyze the legal risks of virtual currency investment and financial management through the MBI large-scale transnational pyramid scheme case and several derivative cases involved in the project.
The case involved more than 10 million members and more than 100 billion RMB in funds, far exceeding the Plus token case in terms of both the number of people involved and the amount of money involved. Below, the author will analyze the legal risks of virtual currency investment and financial management through the MBI large-scale transnational pyramid scheme case and several derivative cases involved in the project.
See original
1 hour ago, Binance cold wallet transferred 100,000 LPT worth 1.33 million USD to ARB. Basically, cross-chain to ARB means entrusting and staking. But it is rare to withdraw money directly from Binance cold wallet.
See original
In-depth analysis of the EU's "Market in Crypto-Assets Regulation Act" MiCA
On June 9, 2023, the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation bill (MiCA) was published in the Official Gazette of the European Union after nearly two and a half years of legislative review and officially became law. MiCA is the EU's first legislation on the regulatory framework for the crypto asset market.
MiCA's past and present
The European Banking Authority (EBA) released a report in 2019 that there are risks of insufficient consumer protection and money laundering in crypto asset transactions, and recommended that the European Commission take action. In 2020, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive No. 5 led to inconsistent registration and licensing systems for cryptocurrencies in various countries, adding regulatory pressure and compliance costs to regulators and companies. Regulatory authorities in various countries and the crypto industry are calling on the EU to introduce relevant laws and regulations to assist in supervision. Subsequently, the MiCA draft was proposed in September of the same year and approved at the EU meeting on April 20, 2023.
MiCA's past and present
The European Banking Authority (EBA) released a report in 2019 that there are risks of insufficient consumer protection and money laundering in crypto asset transactions, and recommended that the European Commission take action. In 2020, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive No. 5 led to inconsistent registration and licensing systems for cryptocurrencies in various countries, adding regulatory pressure and compliance costs to regulators and companies. Regulatory authorities in various countries and the crypto industry are calling on the EU to introduce relevant laws and regulations to assist in supervision. Subsequently, the MiCA draft was proposed in September of the same year and approved at the EU meeting on April 20, 2023.
