On January 7, 2026, in the East 8 Time Zone, a criminal accusation surrounding a certain virtual asset trading platform brought long-hidden legal risks in the industry to the forefront. The focus of the case is that the platform is accused of violating the criminal law's "operating a casino" offense, with its business, originally viewed as a financial innovation and derivative allocation tool, being redefined by some investigative and judicial perspectives as "disguised gambling." Even more shocking to practitioners is that, according to public reports, a large number of ordinary positions, including technology, product, operations, business, marketing, customer service, finance, and human resources, may be included in the scope of criminal investigation, breaking the past psychological expectation that "the core decision-making layer bears the main risk." In the reality where the boundary between innovative business and criminal law is always blurred, the core question that practitioners must face is how much uncertainty they will encounter and which behaviors will slide from the compliance gray area to the criminal red line.

The Turn from Trading Hall to Casino Accusation

The most shocking aspect of this case lies in the path of accusation itself: on the surface, it involves routine matchmaking transactions and derivative trading, but in essence, it has been extended by investigative agencies to be interpreted as "providing centralized gambling and profiting from it." The case's approach often starts from how the platform designs product rules, sets leverage, charges fees, and funding rates, and then argues whether it has substantially played the role of "the schemer" and "the banker" in attracting users to participate in high-risk bets and obtaining stable profits from them. Under the current criminal law framework, the traditional applicable scenarios for "operating a casino" are mostly concentrated on providing gambling venues, organizing gambling games, and building gambling websites, with relatively clear behavioral structures, including providing venues, gambling tools, settlement tools, and organizing and managing gambling games. In contrast, the centralized matchmaking and perpetual contract trading of crypto assets are essentially designed as highly financial risk pricing and hedging tools, where the boundary between participants motivated by profit and those motivated purely for entertainment has not reached a consensus in theory and practice, leading to a significant misalignment when applying the traditional "operating a casino" provisions in this case. For this reason, the relevant cases have been evaluated by multiple parties as "complex in nature," requiring not only a comparison with the criminal law provisions but also weighing regulatory guidance, industry development stages, and overall social risk awareness, making every qualitative judgment carry a demonstrative effect beyond the individual case itself.

The Life-and-Death Line of Perpetual Contracts Being Labeled as Gambling

Among all business lines, perpetual contracts are almost inherently at the center of controversy. Their high leverage, two-way opening, lack of fixed delivery dates, and funding rate-driven price game structure make it easy for external observers to compare them with the traditional logic of "doubling chips" and "the banker taking a cut"; especially when some users engage in frequent short-term trading with a "get-rich-quick mentality," the trading behavior superficially resembles a betting model of "betting on rises and falls." Public legal opinions generally emphasize that whether perpetual contracts constitute gambling behavior cannot be simply determined by high risk or overnight liquidation results, but must return to the specific product design and actual operational mechanisms: whether they have real price discovery and risk hedging functions, whether the platform is a neutral matcher rather than a counterparty, and whether there is intentional algorithmic manipulation or inducement of extreme speculation. The real core of the defense is not to deny the high-risk nature of perpetual contracts but to directly address the case's classification—whether it is the radical end of financial derivative trading or a casino disguised as trading, which concerns whether the entire business model can continue to exist, whether it can be included in the regulatory view through compliance transformation, or whether it will be regarded as a gambling venue in the criminal law sense, leading to a "life-and-death line" type of polar outcome.

Ordinary Employees Involved: From Programmers to…

One significant difference from previous financial cases is that the potential criminal risk's spillover range is clearly expanding. According to public reports from PANews and others, under the current investigative logic, positions such as technical development, product managers, operations, business development, marketing, customer support, financial settlement, and even human resources may be included in the investigation due to their participation in the overall operation of the platform. This means that from programmers writing matchmaking engine code to operations responsible for community activities, and to human resources personnel handling payroll and social security, all may be questioned about their understanding of the business model, depth of participation, and whether they knowingly provided support despite the platform's alleged illegal activities. Meanwhile, in legal practice, the determination of "joint crime" often needs to distinguish between the business decision-making layer and the execution layer, core personnel sharing profits and ordinary support positions: who participated in key business design, who led the launch and promotion of high-risk products, and who made decisions to push forward despite knowing the potential illegality are the focal points of contention. Many grassroots employees subjectively view the exchange as an ordinary internet company and lack a full understanding of financial and criminal law risks; whether their actions are sufficient to constitute joint crime currently lacks public, systematic case law to provide a clear answer. For this reason, the specific circumstances under which non-core positions are held accountable can only be approached with a high degree of caution and a "to be verified" attitude at this stage, as it is neither optimistic to assume that "crackdowns will always only target the boss" nor advisable to exaggerate panic without authoritative cases, pushing all supportive work to the criminal edge.

Lawyers' Combination Punch: Courtroom Battles and…

Faced with the highly uncertain application of law, professional lawyers have begun to publish systematic legal opinions, attempting to build defenses simultaneously on the fronts of case classification and employee roles. On one hand, they deconstruct each link of the so-called "operating a casino" from the perspective of the elements of criminal law, comparing the platform's real business logic and arguing the essential differences in participation motivation, risk structure, and sources of income between it and traditional casinos, emphasizing that financial attributes and gambling attributes cannot be simply equated; on the other hand, at the employee level, they outline the functional boundaries of each position, distinguishing decision-making, execution, and logistical support, striving to separate most ordinary employees from the "joint crime circle." The so-called "combination punch" defense is reflected both in the courtroom through meticulous evidence examination—checking transaction data, product white papers, internal systems, and other materials item by item—and outside the courtroom by communicating industry realities with judicial and regulatory authorities, explaining the technical basis and risk characteristics of crypto businesses, and warning against overly harsh and vague classifications that may lead to a chilling effect. On one side of the courtroom is a strict examination of whether specific behaviors violate the law; on the other side of society, judges and prosecutors also need to find a balance between cracking down on illegal activities, maintaining social warnings, and avoiding stifling innovation, making every legal opinion not only a means for the parties to "survive" but also a participation in shaping future judicial boundaries.

Not Guilty Defense and Leniency Reality: The Game…

In such cases, a pragmatic strategic judgment is gradually becoming clear: a not guilty defense is formally a direct struggle against classification, but in effect, it is often seen as an important bargaining chip for seeking "leniency." Public opinions point out that in the context of highly controversial classifications and evolving legal and regulatory attitudes, if the defense side retreats to the "plead guilty for leniency" path from the beginning, it often unconsciously acknowledges the framework premise of "operating a casino," leading the entire industry to face a more difficult-to-shake established label in subsequent cases. In contrast, insisting on constructing a not guilty argument from multiple dimensions, including the nature of behavior, industry status, and legal gaps, even if the court ultimately does not fully adopt it for risk control and social effect considerations, may still reflect a more cautious assessment of subjective malice, harmful results, and the roles of accomplices and secondary participants during the sentencing phase. The current judicial guidance in such crypto cases presents a subtle gray area: on one hand, there is political and social pressure for strict crackdowns, requiring clear deterrent signals against high-risk speculative activities; on the other hand, it must also acknowledge that the relevant business is still in a period of regulatory exploration, and a one-size-fits-all classification as traditional gambling or illegal activities is not conducive to medium- and long-term institutional development. Therefore, the coexistence of strict and lenient paths leaves room for the defense to negotiate for more favorable sentencing space through a not guilty stance, which still exists in the short term.

Self-Rescue and Breakthrough Under Industry Line-Treading Exploration

Returning to this widely watched case, it serves more as a mirror, starkly revealing the industry's long-standing habit of treading the legal gray area. As the business hub, exchanges have historically focused primarily on product innovation and user growth, with severely lagging assessments and prevention of criminal law risks, now having to face unprecedented criminal uncertainty. Practitioners' "self-protection" should no longer remain at a vague psychological comfort level but needs to form several bottom-line thoughts: identify obviously high-risk business forms and radical practices that are likely to be interpreted as judicial risks, maintain high vigilance against arrangements involving "nominal executives" and "formal participation in equity or products," and avoid being pushed into decision-making or key responsibility positions without risk awareness; at the same time, in daily work, try to retain written records and compliance communication traces related to their functions, so as to prove their subjective unawareness of illegal purposes in future disputes. Looking further ahead, to truly break out of the cycle of repeated line-treading and passive responses, relying solely on defense techniques in individual cases is far from enough; the industry needs to work with regulatory and judicial systems to promote clearer rules: which products are considered regulatory financial innovations, which designs are firmly prohibited speculative gambling, and under what understanding and participation levels employees should not be easily drawn into criminal accusations. Rather than continuing to bet on the short-term benefits brought by ambiguous areas, it is better to promote the visibility and documentation of boundaries; only on a more transparent institutional track can exchanges and practitioners truly step out of the shadow of being labeled as "casinos."

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。