Today, The Paper reported a case in which a college student distributed local dogs and withdrew the pond to make a profit, which triggered widespread discussion in the circle. The college student was sentenced to four years and six months in prison and a fine of 30,000 yuan in the first instance. The Paper learned that in the second instance, Yang Qichao's defense lawyer still defended his innocence.
I personally think that a not guilty defense is probably not the best solution for this case. There are two important time points for effective defense in this case. First, in the process of transferring the case for review and prosecution, the public prosecutor should explain the legal principles and reasoning to the public prosecutor and strive for non-prosecution or suspended sentence. Of course, this stage has passed and it is meaningless to talk about it again. Second, in the second-instance defense, the focus should be on the argument of the charge. If it can be changed to the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data, and the defendant voluntarily pleads guilty and accepts punishment, the defendant's sentence will be greatly reduced. If you just defend your not guilty, it is unlikely to have a good result.
The focus of the dispute in this case is not the legal attributes of USDT. In practice, it is no longer meaningful to defend the legal attributes of USDT. It is not uncommon for currency-related cases to be sentenced as property crimes. I think the real focus of the dispute in this case is whether the victim had a wrong understanding. Of course, the victim did not suffer any actual losses, and the defense view that the BFF token subsequently appreciated because of liquidity, as stated by the first instance court, cannot affect the completion of the crime because of the appreciation of the BFF token.
Of course, we cannot simply assume that the victim is a cryptocurrency expert and is familiar with blockchain, which can negate the victim's misunderstanding. However, as the media disclosed, the victim wrote a script in advance to rush the first wave of local dogs. This part of the facts should be clarified by the investigation agency, or restored to reality through technical means, which can effectively negate the victim's disposal of property based on a wrong understanding, and thus achieve an effective defense against the crime of fraud. For example, the purchase and recharge of liquidity by the victim in this case occurred in the same block. If it were not for an automated script, manual operation would not be possible.
In the last bull market, it became a trend to rush into the local dog market. In order to enter the market as soon as possible, some scientists wrote scripts to monitor the newly issued local dogs on the chain, enter the market as early as possible, and then quickly leave the market with profits. Later, there was a sickle specifically targeting scientists, which is the situation described in this case. I issued the currency to circle the first wave of scientists who rushed in, so there was the story of withdrawing the pool in 24 seconds in this case. Therefore, in this case, the victim did not have a wrong understanding. Even if there was a wrong understanding, it should be the understanding that "it is impossible to withdraw the pool quickly". No one can benefit from illegality, and this wrong understanding should not be protected. On the other hand, the defendant also had the purpose of illegal possession. To put it bluntly, he specifically cut these scientists, just as the defendant confessed, "I just took back the points that the big brother cut from me, and I was cut a lot."
Therefore, I think that since this case has entered the second instance, if the defendant pleads guilty and the lawyer defends the charges, the sentence can be effectively reduced by illegally obtaining computer information system data. The best criminal circumstances can be selected from the two perspectives of the defendant's profit and the victim's loss, and the best defense effect can be achieved. One person's opinion may not be correct, so wait and see the result of the second instance.