This article is reprinted with authorization from the Xiao Za legal team, author: Xiao Za lawyer, copyright belongs to the original author.
Just the day before yesterday, the "Two Highs" issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Concealing and Hiding Criminal Proceeds and the Proceeds of Crime" (Fa Shi [2025] No. 13), making several important changes to the old judicial interpretation from 2015 (revised in 2021).
Since the criminal law established the crime of concealing and selling stolen goods in 1979, China's criminal law has established a regulatory system for money laundering crimes centered on Article 191 (money laundering), Article 312 (concealing and hiding criminal proceeds) as a general clause, and Article 349 (harboring, transferring, and concealing drugs and proceeds from drugs) as a supplementary clause. Among these, the crime of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds is the most common type of money laundering crime in practice. From 2020 to 2024 alone, the procuratorial organs prosecuted a total of 230,200 cases of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds, and the people's courts concluded 220,900 first-instance cases.
In 2015, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Concealing and Hiding Criminal Proceeds and the Proceeds of Crime" (Fa Shi [2015] No. 11), providing important guidance for judicial practice. However, due to economic and social development and changes in crime trends, the old interpretation gradually faced many new issues, whether it was the high incidence of upstream crimes such as telecom network fraud and online gambling or the discrepancies in judicial application, necessitating the issuance of a new interpretation. Therefore, on August 25, 2025, the "Two Highs" promulgated a new judicial interpretation in response to the need to govern the crime of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds. The Xiao Za team will also present the changes between the old and new interpretations in the following sections through a "table flow" format, while also interpreting the intricacies behind these changes.
From the table comparison, the core changes of the new interpretation can be summarized into three main directions.
The first is to expand the regulatory scope, incorporating other property interests into the category of criminal proceeds, defining criminal methods as "any means capable of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds and their benefits," covering new forms of crime such as virtual asset handling and cross-border asset transfers, filling the coverage gaps of traditional clauses;
The second is to refine the standards for determination and sentencing, clarifying that "knowledge" needs to be judged comprehensively based on the information the actor has access to, abnormal transaction situations, professional experience, etc., avoiding overly broad subjective presumptions, while distinguishing between types of upstream crimes, setting two levels of "serious circumstances" amount standards of "five million yuan" and "five hundred thousand yuan," forming a dual judgment rule of "amount + circumstances" in conjunction with specific circumstances, addressing the "one-size-fits-all" sentencing issue of the old interpretation;
The third is to improve special circumstances and leniency rules, adding a "dual punishment system" for corporate crimes, clarifying that the crime can still be established even if the upstream perpetrator has not been apprehended or is deceased, and optimizing leniency clauses by supplementing circumstances where "cooperation with judicial authorities in tracing upstream crimes plays a significant role," balancing the integrity and flexibility of judicial application.
The value of these adjustments is significant, as they precisely respond to new types of criminal methods, providing support for cutting off the "proceeds handling chain" of upstream crimes; they also balance enforcement and protection with refined rules, unify judicial standards, enhance the quality and efficiency of handling money laundering-related crimes, and promote the implementation of anti-money laundering and internet crime governance.
Among the six typical cases of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds released simultaneously with the new interpretation, the first case involved criminals An and two others converting the criminal proceeds of a telecom fraud group into virtual currency through the OKEX trading platform, thereby achieving asset transfer, ultimately sentenced to two to three years of fixed-term imprisonment. During the trial, the court applied the interpretation of "other methods" in the first article of the new interpretation to the provisions of Article 312 of the Criminal Law, which includes "any means capable of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds and their benefits," covering various methods including "cross-border asset transfers."
It is evident from this case that the first article is the provision with the greatest impact on the cryptocurrency sector in the new interpretation. "Any means" means that public security organs, procuratorial organs, and courts are no longer limited to a few forms of concealment and hiding when investigating the crime of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds, but instead focus on the substantive content of the means of action, whether it is sufficient to achieve concealment or hiding. If an actor uses virtual currencies such as stablecoins to launder their criminal proceeds, it will also be regarded as "other methods" as stipulated by the criminal law, thus constituting the elements of the crime. Additionally, operators providing related services may also face criminal risks for allowing such transactions to proceed.
For those engaged in virtual currency trading, it is crucial to be cautious of unknown individuals seeking your assistance in purchasing virtual currency for a fee, as you may inadvertently help criminals transfer illegal assets through the buying and selling of virtual currencies. Although the second article of the new interpretation establishes a comprehensive judgment standard for the subjective element of "knowledge," no longer presuming knowledge in a one-size-fits-all manner, individuals engaged in virtual currency trading have a relatively professional understanding of such actions, and even if they do not intend to assist others in money laundering, there is still a risk of being judged as having knowledge.
For service providers operating virtual currency trading platforms, the new interpretation also imposes a higher duty of care, as the judgment standard for knowledge includes abnormal transaction behaviors and funding account anomalies, as well as the professional experience of the actor. For platform operators, who possess strong professional knowledge, failing to reasonably monitor abnormal virtual currency transactions on the platform may also lead to being presumed to have knowledge of criminal risks. Therefore, in the period following the promulgation of the new interpretation, operators should promptly establish monitoring mechanisms for abnormal transactions and accounts on the platform to avoid being seen as condoning money laundering activities within the platform, thus achieving compliant and safe development of the platform.
Overall, the new interpretation expands the scope of recognition, refines judgment standards, and optimizes leniency mechanisms, achieving "full regulation" of new types of concealment and hiding behaviors while avoiding the expansion of criminal enforcement, precisely weaving a governance legal net.
On a deeper level, this revision not only serves as a "timely rain" in response to changes in crime patterns but also reflects an upgrade in China's approach to combating money laundering crimes, shifting from "heavy emphasis on the quantity of enforcement" to "heavy emphasis on the quality of enforcement," and from "single standard judgment" to "comprehensive risk assessment." For the public, it serves as a clear legal warning; for judicial practice, it is a precise "case handling guide," making conviction and sentencing more aligned with the actual social harm, ultimately building a solid legal barrier for maintaining economic order and safeguarding judicial authority.
Related: 112 cryptocurrency companies urge the Senate to protect developers in the market structure bill
Original text: “Detailed Analysis of the New 'Concealment Crime Judicial Interpretation,' What Does It Mean for the Cryptocurrency Sector?”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
