If you are criminally detained for cash transactions of USDT (or other stablecoins), the main legal issues involved are illegal business operations or money laundering. In this case, defense attorneys typically argue from the following perspectives:
1. No intent for illegal business operations
Defense point: If the defendant is conducting cash transactions of USDT as an ordinary investor, without engaging in large-scale illegal operations or deliberately manipulating the market, it can be argued that there is no subjective intent for illegal business operations. For example: Buying or selling USDT is purely for personal asset allocation or capital turnover needs, and there are no frequent transactions, nor malicious price manipulation or resale behaviors.
2. No evidence proving involvement in money laundering activities
Defense point: Money laundering usually requires proof of illegal fund flows regarding the source or destination of the funds. If the defendant is merely exchanging personal funds normally, without evidence showing that the funds were used for criminal activities, it can be argued that the charge of money laundering does not stand. For example: If the funds for buying and selling USDT are legitimate and the transaction funds do not involve other criminal activities (such as drug trafficking, fraud, etc.), it can be argued for the legitimacy of the funds, thus not constituting money laundering.
3. Legal virtual currency trading behavior
Defense point: According to current Chinese laws, the purchase and sale of virtual currencies are not illegal in themselves, unless these transactions involve illegal uses (such as money laundering, fraud, etc.). If the defendant's actions are merely normal virtual currency transactions, it can be argued that their actions do not constitute a crime. For example: Many platforms and users engage in virtual currency trading for investment, asset management, and other legitimate purposes, as long as there is no connection to criminal activities, the transactions themselves should be considered legal.
4. Small transaction volume, no obvious profit-making behavior
Defense point: If the defendant's transaction volume is small, there are no obvious profit-making behaviors, and the transactions do not meet the standards for large-scale illegal operations, it can be argued that their actions constitute legitimate personal trading rather than illegal commercial activities. For example: In certain cases, occasional or single transactions of virtual currency that do not involve profit or large amounts of capital manipulation, having a small transaction volume, may only serve personal investment and asset allocation purposes.
5. No evidence proving participation in organized criminal activities
Defense point: If there is no evidence proving that the defendant participated in organized virtual currency trading or large-scale illegal activities (for example, involvement in a money laundering group), it can be argued that their actions are merely personal and do not constitute a criminal offense. For example: If the defendant is only trading personal funds on a legitimate platform and has not participated in any illegal organizations or criminal groups, a defense can be made to avoid excessive conviction.
6. Compliance issues of trading platforms
Defense point: If the trading platform involved is compliant, does not involve 'black market' trading or money laundering, and the platform itself has certain compliance measures in place, this can serve as a basis for defense. For example: If the platform has KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) measures, and complies with relevant regulatory requirements, it can be argued that the defendant's trading actions do not constitute illegal business operations or money laundering.
7. Relevant laws are still unclear
Defense point: Currently, China's laws and regulations regarding virtual currency trading are ambiguous and incomplete, particularly at the level of personal small transactions. If the defendant's actions do not clearly violate existing laws or administrative regulations, a defense of 'legal ambiguity' can be raised. For example: Although China does not allow financial institutions to provide virtual currency trading services, individual transactions of virtual currencies between parties have not been explicitly prohibited, and the legitimacy of virtual currencies is somewhat controversial, thus a claim of innocence can be made.
8. Constitutes an administrative violation rather than a criminal offense
Defense point: If the case does not involve malicious trading, illegal profit-making, fraud, and the defendant's actions only constitute administrative violations (such as not having the relevant qualifications for virtual currency trading), it can be argued that their actions are administrative violations rather than criminal offenses. For example: If the defendant's actions do not involve illegal fund flows, market manipulation, etc., and the behavior is relatively minor, it can be argued that their actions should be subject to administrative penalties rather than criminal liability.
9. Request for leniency or exemption from punishment
Defense point: If the defender can prove that the defendant's subjective malice is minimal, and that they are a first-time or occasional offender, a request can be made to the court for leniency in sentencing. Alternatively, if the defendant actively cooperates with the investigation and truthfully discloses their actions in a timely manner, this can also serve as a basis for reduced punishment. For example: If the defendant demonstrates remorse or actively provides evidence related to the case to the police, this can be a reason for leniency.
Summary:
Whether cash buying or selling USDT will result in criminal detention depends on the specific circumstances and whether the actions meet the elements of relevant crimes. If it can be proven that the actions are not illegal business operations or money laundering, and align with legitimate purposes such as personal investment or capital turnover, a defense can be made to avoid criminal liability. Defense strategies include proving the absence of subjective malicious intent, the legitimacy of fund sources, lack of participation in organized crime, and compliance of the trading platform. If the case is more complex, it is advisable to hire a professional lawyer for detailed legal analysis and defense.
