More than a month ago, the Sajie team heard a shocking news from an old friend in the circle: several core team members of the well-known cryptocurrency data information aggregation platform "Fei Xiaohao" were detained by the police in Inner Mongolia. The specific crime is unknown.   The Sajie team is not the lawyer handling this case, so the specific situation is not clear, but once this incident happened, it still caused a lot of waves in the mainland crypto world - this may mean that my country's supervision of crypto assets has broken through an invisible boundary before and officially extended its tentacles to the edge of the industry.   Today, the Sajie team will combine the existing information and the supervision of judicial practice to explain the "Fei Xiaohao" incident in detail and the possible regulatory direction in the future.   01 Why is the cryptocurrency data information aggregation platform involved in criminal cases?   To be honest, the Sajie team has been engaged in legal practice for a long time, mainly for: (1) crypto asset trading platform service providers; (2) currency traders; (3) crypto asset traders, etc. In short, it is mainly practitioners who directly contact crypto asset transactions. For third-party transaction data and information aggregation platforms such as the currency circle, digital collections, and NFT, the Sister Sa team is more engaged in cooperation, most of which are knowledge sharing and legal education activities. In most cases, for platforms that only provide such information, not to mention suspected crimes, even violations of my country's administrative regulations are very rare. Therefore, in the public's view and the cognition of the crypto asset circle, "practitioners who do not directly contact crypto assets have less legal risks" is an invisible regulatory line, and things outside the line are not so strictly managed. So why was "Fei Xiaohao" taken away by the Inner Mongolia police? Did the supervision break through the invisible boundary or was there something else hidden? The Sister Sa team summarized some of the news that they currently have that is not sure whether it is true or false. There are some not so reliable news that the founder of Fei Xiaohao lost money in gambling abroad and tried to repay the debt by selling Fei Xiaohao, but improper operations during the transaction may have caused related legal disputes. After the third party filed a criminal complaint, the police intervened. There are also sources saying that the reason why the core team members of “Fei Xiaohao” were taken away was mainly because around 2017 and 2018, my country’s lax ICO supervision led to the simultaneous issuance of tens of thousands of coins. Many air coin project parties found “Fei Xiaohao”, which was already very well-known in the circle at that time, and promoted their own projects through paid promotion.For example, in November 2021, "Fei Xiaohao" vigorously promoted a project called "Squid Game". As a result, a large number of investors became "leeks" in this project. The price of the coin crashed from the highest point of 2861.8 US dollars to zero. The subsequent projects have been unfinished and have not been concluded so far. No one covers the losses of investors, and the project party directly ran away. There are actually quite a few projects similar to "Squid Game" that "Fei Xiaohao" has paid to promote before. According to information provided by a third-party insider, the price of "Fei Xiaohao" at that time was about 200,000 yuan, and it was able to promote the coin.   Finally, it should be mentioned that "Fei Xiaohao" may have issued its own platform coin, which is suspected to be called BQT. It's just that the official "Fei Xiaohao" has never denied that it has any connection with this project party.   In general, apart from the first more vague situation, the second and third situations may actually lead to "Fei Xiaohao" being involved in criminal cases.   02 What kind of crime does the paid promotion of the currency circle information aggregation platform constitute? From a personal perspective, the Sajie team believes that if the criminal detention of the core team members of "Fei Xiaohao" is related to their business, it is likely because they promoted problematic coins or other crypto asset projects. In other words, "Fei Xiaohao" and the project parties that have already been involved in criminal cases are likely to be heavily implicated due to promotion sharing or other issues, or they have provided a lot of substantial help (such as deep participation in market making) in the process of promoting the projects of the project parties that have already been involved in criminal cases. This behavior is likely to cause currency information aggregation platforms like "Fei Xiaohao" to be identified as accomplices of criminal crimes by judicial authorities. Taking the Squid Game project mentioned earlier as an example, the white paper of the Squid Game project issued by Squid Game shows that the project is a virtual currency game earning platform issued on the BSC public chain, inspired by the Korean hit drama of the same name issued by Netflix. The founders of the Squid Game project and Squid Coin also publicly declared that the Squid Game project is Netflix's official token partner and has established a strategic partnership with the virtual currency platform CoinGecko to jointly issue coins. In the following week, Squidcoin’s highest increase was 2,300 times, and the price reached 2,861.8 dollars, but it collapsed to zero in a short period of time, and many investors suffered huge losses and had nowhere to turn to. Later, Bobby Ong, co-founder of CoinGecko, said: Squid Coin does not meet the platform listing standards, so this kind of coin will not be listed and traded on Coincecko. In fact, when Squid Coin was the most popular, it was basically traded on a platform called Pancakeswap. It can be seen that the Squid Game project may have lied on some key issues of marketing investor decision-making. According to Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of my country, this behavior is suspected of constituting the crime of fraud. The crime of fraud refers to the act of defrauding public or private property in a large amount. In judicial practice, the elements for the suspect to constitute the crime of fraud are as follows: (1) The suspect has the purpose of illegally possessing the property of others; (2) The suspect objectively commits "fraud", which is generally an act of "fabricating facts" or "concealing the truth"; (3) The victim falls into a wrong cognition due to the fraud committed by the suspect, disposes of his own property, and suffers property losses. Assuming that the behavior of the Squid Game project party constitutes a crime of fraud and a large number of victims are Chinese citizens, then "Fei Xiaohao" is an important promoter of "the victim's misconception due to the fraud committed by the suspect" in the process of paid promotion of Squid Coin, and provides substantial assistance to the actual criminal behavior of the Squid Game project party. In other words, although "Fei Xiaohao" is not the principal offender, it is likely to be identified as an accomplice by my country's judicial authorities.

The so-called joint crime refers to a crime committed intentionally by two or more people. In addition to dividing the perpetrators into principals and accomplices based on the role they play in the joint crime, the perpetrators can be divided into principals and accomplices based on their roles in the joint crime. Among them, the principal offender refers to the criminal who directly participates in completing the constituent elements of the crime; the accomplice includes the accomplice (the person who provides assistance to the crime) and the abettor (the person who abets others to commit a crime).   03 If it is used as a tool by the project party involved in the case, does the paid promotion of the currency circle information aggregation platform still constitute a crime?   In any case, illegal fundraising crimes such as fraud require the suspect to have subjective intent to commit the crime. From the perspective of accomplices and accomplices, the core team members of "non-small accounts" need to have a certain degree of subjective cognition of the criminal behavior of the project party. This degree of cognition cannot be too low, otherwise it cannot be judged that there is a common criminal intent with the suspect. In practice, judicial organs need to make a judgment on the subjective cognition of the cryptocurrency information aggregation platform in combination with its objective behavior. We cannot rule out the existence of platforms that are purely used as tools by the project parties involved in the case and mistakenly promote air coins. Therefore, before listing and promoting coins, the cryptocurrency information aggregation platform’s own internal control and risk control system’s evaluation of the project parties and the project itself and the retained evidence are very critical. If the cryptocurrency information aggregation platform is simply used as a tool by the project parties involved in the case, then the Sister Sa team believes that such behavior cannot be identified as an accomplice of the coin issuing project party. Of course, if it is a paid promotion, it is extremely difficult to prove that you are purely being used in practice. 04 Written at the end
The Sajie team believes that, judging from the "non-small account" incident alone, it is not quite accurate to say that my country's supervision has broken through the invisible boundary and started to take action against the "water sellers" in the crypto asset industry. After all, those who have experienced the bull market in the cryptocurrency circle around 2017 know that many so-called "water sellers" may have other things hidden in their bags. If it is indeed because of the project party's accident and the risk spillover caused by the fire, then it is not impossible for the "water sellers" to be affected. In short, there are many different opinions on the "non-small account" incident. The Sajie team can only make judgments based on the existing information. It is better for us to let the bullet fly for a while.