🎉 Share Your 2025 Year-End Summary & Win $10,000 Sharing Rewards!
Reflect on your year with Gate and share your report on Square for a chance to win $10,000!
👇 How to Join:
1️⃣ Click to check your Year-End Summary: https://www.gate.com/competition/your-year-in-review-2025
2️⃣ After viewing, share it on social media or Gate Square using the "Share" button
3️⃣ Invite friends to like, comment, and share. More interactions, higher chances of winning!
🎁 Generous Prizes:
1️⃣ Daily Lucky Winner: 1 winner per day gets $30 GT, a branded hoodie, and a Gate × Red Bull tumbler
2️⃣ Lucky Share Draw: 10
Crypto Circle/Coin Circle friends, quickly save this! Recently, regulators have been cracking down very harshly on virtual currencies. The 13 ministries and 7 associations have issued consecutive regulations, and the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court has taken this opportunity to release a discussion on virtual currency crimes, directly setting the tone for judicial recognition, which concerns everyone who has ever traded USDT!
First, let's highlight the key points: On December 17, the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court officially published "Legal Uniformity in Cases Involving Virtual Currency Crimes." The two cases involving selling U and the court's viewpoints are considered a "pitfall avoidance guide"! Whether you're a crypto industry practitioner or an occasional trader, you must read this thoroughly~
Let's look at two real cases. Do you think they constitute a crime?
Case 1: Cai has a large amount of U coins and sold them all online at 10% above the market price, earning 1 million. Later, it was found that the money used to buy U was from a fraud-related fund, and Cai himself admitted that selling U at a high price was abnormal.
Case 2: Yang sold U at 5 cents above the market price per coin on TG, conducting over 10,000 USDT transactions with more than a thousand people within half a year, earning 1.2 million. Eventually, it was discovered that 4.8 million of his U sales money was from fraudulent funds.
Does your instinct tell you "both are guilty"? But the court's viewpoint is surprisingly overturning—the two are not guilty of money laundering! The core reason is "subjective ignorance"!
Key judgment criteria from the court (remember these points to avoid big pitfalls):
1. The "knowledge" required for the crime of money laundering must be precise! It must be clear that one is assisting in upstream crimes such as financial fraud, and not just based on "abnormal transactions" to convict. Cai admitted that selling U at a high price was strange, but he didn't know the money came from a fraud scheme, so he was not