自2021年以来，币圈创业者已经知道发行虚拟货币极易触发法律红线，比如会涉嫌非法集资犯罪、组织领导传销犯罪、非法经营犯罪等。自从去年以来，刘律师办理了几起因发行虚拟货币而涉嫌组织、领导传销犯罪的案件，根据我对这类案件的理解，分别从法理和实务的角度来聊聊为什么发行虚拟货币容易被司法机关认定为传销犯罪，以及这类案件该如何进行辩护？
Since 2021, currency entrepreneurs have learned that the issuance of virtual currency can easily trigger a legal red line, for example, if it is suspected of illicitly collecting funds, organizing and leading the distribution of crimes, and operating illegally. Since last year, lawyers Liu has dealt with several cases in which virtual money has been issued because it is suspected of organizing and leading the distribution of offences. On the basis of my understanding of such cases, let's discuss, from a legal and practical point of view, why the issuance of virtual currency is liable to be recognized as a criminal offence by the judiciary, and how such cases should be defended.
一、传销和传销犯罪
i. Distribution and distribution offences
法律上的传销有两种，行政法意义上的传销和刑法上的组织、领导传销活动罪（以下简称“传销犯罪”），两种传销活动的定义和法律责任（处罚）不尽相同。
There are two types of distribution in law, one in administrative law and the other in criminal law for organizing, leading and distributing activities (hereinafter referred to as “distribution offences”), and the two types of distribution activities have different definitions and legal liability (punishment).
行政法意义上的传销是国务院的《禁止传销条例》所规定的，其对传销的定义为：
Distribution in the sense of administrative law is regulated by the Regulation of the State Council on Prohibition of Distribution, which defines distribution as:
“本条例所称传销，是指组织者或者经营者发展人员，通过对被发展人员以其直接或者间接发展的人员数量或者销售业绩为依据计算和给付报酬，或者要求被发展人员以交纳一定费用为条件取得加入资格等方式牟取非法利益，扰乱经济秩序，影响社会稳定的行为。”
“A distribution within the meaning of this regulation shall mean an act by which an organizer or an operator develops an illegal interest, which disrupts the economic order and affects the stability of society by calculating and paying compensation to a person who has been developed on the basis of his or her sales performance , either directly or indirectly, or by requiring a person who has been developed to qualify for membership on the condition that he or she has paid a certain fee .”
根据文义解释来说，似乎列举的几种模式是并列的关系。比如直接或间接以被发展人员数量为依据计算收益、以被发展人员的销售业务为依据计算收益、要求被发展人员交纳“入门费”取得加入资格等，只要满足之一就构成违法意义上（非犯罪）的传销。
By semantic interpretation, it seems that several of the models listed are parallel relationships. For example, the calculation of proceeds directly or indirectly on the basis of the number of persons being developed, the calculation of proceeds on the basis of the sales operations of the persons being developed, and the requirement that the persons being developed pay an “introduction fee” to qualify for membership, if one is satisfied, would constitute a distribution in the sense of a violation (non-offence).
同时，根据《禁止传销条例》的规定，在行政传销的具体表现上，有以下几种模式：
At the same time, under the Prohibition of Distribution Ordinance, there are several forms of administrative distribution:
“1. 组织者或者经营者通过发展人员，要求被发展人员发展其他人员加入，对发展的人员以其直接或者间接滚动发展的人员数量为依据计算和给付报酬，牟取非法利益的；
“1. The organizer or operator, through development agents, requires the development of other persons by development agents, and the calculation and remuneration of development personnel on the basis of their number of persons, directly or indirectly, rolling;
2. 组织者或者经营者通过发展人员，要求被发展人员交纳费用或者以认购商品等方式变相交纳费用，取得加入或者发展其他人员加入的资格，牟取非法利益的；
2. The organizer or operator acquires the qualifications to join or develop the membership of other persons in order to obtain illicit benefits through the development of personnel, by requiring the person under development to pay the fee or to pay the fee in exchange for the purchase of goods, etc.;
3. 组织者或者经营者通过发展人员，要求被发展人员发展其他人员加入，形成上下线关系，并以下线的销售业绩为依据计算和给付上线报酬，牟取非法利益的。”
3. The organizer or operator, through the development agent, requires the development of other persons by the development agent to enter into a line-up relationship, and the sales performance of the line below is calculated and paid on the basis of the line-up remuneration for illicit gain.”
也就是说行政法上的传销是非常容易构成的，只要形成2层以上层级，最末层级被上级用来作为计算和支付报酬、交纳入门费以及最末层级的销售业绩被用于计算和支付报酬等情形之一的就构成违法传销。但是实务中，我们也听到了不同的声音，有人认为行政违法上的传销认定太过于宽泛和随意，合理的认定方式应当和刑事犯罪中的标准一样，比如需要以下三个特征同时具备：“一是通过直接或间接发展下线人员，并组成层级结构；二是需要被发展人员交纳或变相交纳入门费；三是以被发展的下线人员数量或销售业绩作为计酬或返利依据。”
In other words, distribution in administrative law is very easy to construct, as long as it forms two or more levels, the lowest level of which is used by a superior as one of the circumstances in which the calculation and payment of remuneration, the payment of fees and sales performance at the last level are used to calculate and pay. In practice, however, we have heard different voices that suggest that circulation in administrative law is too broad and arbitrary, and that reasonable attribution should be based on the same criteria as in criminal offences, such as the following three characteristics: “firstly, direct or indirect development of downliners and the formation of a hierarchical structure; secondly, the need for development personnel to co-finance or convert into fees; and thirdly, on the basis of the number of bottom-line persons who have been developed or sales performance as a basis for calculating or returning profits.”
作为“为生命呐喊、为自由辩护”的刑辩律师，同时作为信仰自由市场经济理论的刘律师也希望行政对于市场的干预要尽量地少，即使对于行政传销违法行为也应当从严认定。但是实务现状到底如何并不是理论家们在办公室写几篇文章就能决定的，实务中的行政部门（市场监督管理部门）并不会严格按照上述的三个要件必须同时具备的标准来执法，部分地区的现实考量因素之一就是财政罚没收入。
As a criminal defense lawyer who is “screaming for life, defending freedom” and as a lawyer who believes in the theory of a free market economy, Liu also wants the administration to intervene as little as possible in the market, even in cases of administrative distribution offences, to be strictly judged. But how the actual situation is not determined by theorists writing several articles in the office, the executive branch (market supervisory authority) in practice does not enforce the law in strict compliance with the criteria that must accompany the three above-mentioned elements, and one of the real factors in some regions is the lack of revenue.
传销违法行为的处罚：对于组织策划者要被没收违法所得，同时处50万—200万的罚款；对于有介绍、诱骗、胁迫他人参加传销的，要被没收非法财物、违法所得，同时处10万—50万的罚款。
The penalty for the offence of distribution is the confiscation of the proceeds of the offence by the organizers, together with a fine of between 500,000 and 2 million; and the confiscation of the illegal property and the proceeds of the offence, together with a fine of between 100,000 and 500,000, by the person who procures, induces or coerces another person to participate in the sale.
传销犯罪的认定需要参考我国刑法第224条之一以及“两高一部”《关于办理组织领导传销活动刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》中的规定，对于传销犯罪的构成要件表述为：
The definition of the offence of distribution is based on the provisions of one of article 224 of the Penal Code and of the Opinions on Certain Questions Relating to the Law Applicable to the Organization of the Leadership of Distribution Activities. The constituent elements of the offence of distribution are as follows:
“以推销商品、提供服务等经营活动为名，要求参加者以缴纳费用或者购买商品、服务等方式获得加入资格，并按照一定顺序组成层级，直接或者间接以发展人员的数量作为计酬或者返利依据，引诱、胁迫参加者继续发展他人参加，骗取财物，扰乱经济社会秩序的传销组织，其组织内部参与传销活动人员在30人以上且层级在3级以上”，即构成传销犯罪。
“In the name of marketing of goods, providing services, etc., participants are required to qualify for membership by paying fees or purchasing goods, services, etc. and, in a given order, by the formation of
以上内容可以简单总结为：除了需要同时具备行政传销违法上的“拉人头”“入门费”“团队计酬或返利”以外，还需要最终达到“引诱或胁迫他人继续发展下线参加，骗取财物”的目的。
This can be summarized briefly as follows: in addition to the need to have “pull head” “team pay or return” for illegal administrative sales, there is a need to finally “inducing or coercing others to continue to develop offline participation for the purpose of extracting goods”.
对于构成传销犯罪的，一般情节下可被判处5年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金；情节严重的可被判处5年以上有期徒刑，并处罚金。罚金的数额由法院裁量。情节严重的标准一般包含“累计参与人数达到120人，或缴纳传销资金达到250万元，或造成传销活动人员精神失常、自杀等严重后果等情形。”
The amount of the fine shall be determined by the court. The criteria for the aggravating circumstances generally include “a cumulative number of 120 participants, or a contribution of 2.5 million yuan, or serious consequences such as mental disorder, suicide, etc.”.
在理论研究上，有学者将行政违法上的传销称为“经营性传销”，刑事犯罪中的传销称为“诈骗型传销”。所谓经营性传销是以销售商品为目的，而诈骗型传销，顾名思义就是以骗取财物为目的。
In theoretical studies, there are scholars who refer to administrative offences as “business marketing”, and criminal offences as “frauded distribution”. The so-called business distribution is for the sale of goods by , while fraudulent marketing is by definition for the fraudulent acquisition of goods by .
实务中，司法机关也是以此为终局性的判断标准来认定某个项目是否构成传销违法行为或传销犯罪行为。如果一行为最终为骗取他人财物，且其模式上符合参与者需要缴纳入门费、形成三层以上层级（参与人数30人以上）、存在逐级返利或团队计酬，那么是涉嫌传销犯罪。
In practice, the judiciary also determines whether a project constitutes an offence for distribution or a criminal offence for distribution as a measure of last resort.
不同于传统的传销犯罪，虚拟货币类传销犯罪同时具备网络传销和金融传销的特点。在当下的币圈，涉案项目通过公开社交网络平台、私域流量社群等方式快速进行传播，能在短时间吸引大量的投资者。根据公开资料，仅2023年一年全球因虚拟货币类传销骗局造成投资人损失就达66亿美元之多。基于虚拟货币在发行、推广方面的独特模式很容易被我国司法机关认定为传销犯罪。
Unlike traditional distribution offences, virtual currency distribution offences are characterized by both network distribution and financial distribution. In the currency circles in question, the projects in question can attract large numbers of investors in a short period of time, including through open social networking platforms, private-flow communities, etc. According to public sources, $6.6 billion was lost to investors worldwide in 2023 alone.
根据币圈的不同玩法，以下几种模式很容易被司法机关认定涉嫌传销犯罪：
According to the different ways in which currency rings are played, the following patterns are easily identified by the judicial authorities as suspected offences of distribution:
在当下区块链上发行合约几乎已经是零门槛，一些心术不正者炒作DeFi（去中心化金融（Decentralized Finance））概念，以高额投资回报为噱头设置伪合约代币产品投资门槛，诱导投资人发展下线，通过智能合约内置的（或线下推广时实质采取的）层级关系、以层级返佣或团队计酬方式最终形成金字塔式的庞氏骗局结构。
The issue of contracts on the current chain of blocks is almost zero threshold, with a number of unconscionable individuals faking the DeFi (decentralized finance) concept, setting a pseudo-exchange investment threshold for products with a high return on investment, inducing investors to develop downward lines, eventually forming a pyramid-style Ponzi scheme structure through structured (or substantively adopted underline extension) relationships that are built in smart contracts, and through a hierarchical back-to-work or team-based approach.
真实采用区块链技术的质押挖矿在当下的中国内地司法实践中不能说是肯定合法，但至少不能直接说涉嫌犯罪。但是虚假的质押挖矿就很容易触及中国刑律，尤其是投资人通过主流币兑换平台币投入挖矿获得算力的模式下，通过宣传、诱导投资者投入的主流币越多、推广发展的下线算力越高未来的收益就越高，再给投资者的赎回主流币设置硬性障碍，项目没有真实的技术、资源投入等，最终的目的就是为了骗取投资者的主流币，那么此种模式也极易被司法机关认定为传销犯罪。
Real pledge mining using block-chain technology cannot be said to be legal, but at least not to be directly suspected of criminal activity, in the current Chinese domestic judicial practice. But false pledge mining can easily touch Chinese criminal law, especially in the case of models where investors gain arithmetic through the use of mainstream currency exchange platforms for mining, where the greater the amount of mainstream money they invest, the higher the future returns from promotion, and the harder it is to create a hard barrier to investors’ recovery, the lack of real technology, resources, etc., and the ultimate aim of the project is to lure investors into the mainstream currency.
一些项目平台以托管主流虚拟货币为由，吸收投资人的主流币，后期通过诱导投资人将主流币置换为平台币的方式骗取投资人的主流币。在具体模式上存在诱导投资人推广下线会员投资等传销模式。（具体参见《虚拟货币传销为何屡禁不止？》，作者七星锤）
Some project platforms attract mainstream investors on the grounds of hosting mainstream virtual currencies, and at a later stage lure investors to take mainstream investors by inviting them to exchange them for platform money. In specific models, there is a marketing model that induces investors to promote lower-line members’ investments. (See, for example, " Why Do Virtual Money Transfers? ", author of the seven-star hammer.)
此外，还有形形色色的传销犯罪嫌疑的币圈模式，刘律师不再一一列举。总结起来这些模式的共性就是以骗取财物为终极目的，以短期暴富、高额投资回报等为诱饵，以明显或隐性的方式进行返利，诱导投资人直接或间接缴纳门槛费并推广下线、发展更多人员入场，形成金字塔式的传销结构。
In addition, there are a variety of tangible currency circles for the transfer of suspicion of criminal activity, which Mr. Liu will not list. To sum up, the commonality of these models is to create a pyramid-style distribution structure by using fraud as the ultimate aim, and by using short-term richness, high return on investment, etc., as a decoy, in a clear or hidden way, to induce investors to pay direct or indirect threshold fees and to promote down-linking, the development of more personnel.
并不是所有的发币行为都构成传销，即使有些案件中在表面上也形成了远超过3层以上的结构。作为辩护律师，在代理币圈的传销案件中，尤其是涉及到因发币导致的传销案件中，刘律师建议辩护人一定要着重审查以下内容：
Not all currency issuances constitute distribution, even in some cases on the face of it, a structure of well over three floors. As a defense lawyer, in cases involving the circulation of the surrogate currency, particularly in cases involving the distribution of money, counsel Liu suggests that the defence must focus on the following:
一是从终局目的上看是否为了骗取财物。传销犯罪属于经济犯罪，其根本目的是骗取他人财物，如果一行为或一商业模式最终的目的并未打算或实际上骗取他人的财物，就很难说该行为/商业模式是传销犯罪，当然仅仅依靠这一点辩护是很无力的，司法机关往往会采取客观证据推断主观行为来认定当事人涉刑。这也就要求辩护人除了要证明当事人没有骗取财物的意图或行为外，还要注意结合在案的其他证据进行有效辩护。
It is difficult to say that an act/business model is a criminal offence if it is not intended or actually intended for the ultimate purpose of the act or business model to take possession of another person's property, but it is not possible to rely on this argument alone, which is often used by the judiciary to infer subjective acts in order to convict the person concerned. In addition to proving that the intent or conduct of the person concerned was not to take possession of the property, the defence is required to take effective action in conjunction with other evidence in the case.
二是从组织结构上看是否符合传销的层级及人数要求。传销犯罪的构成基石就是在传销模式下，必须要有三层以上结构+30人以上参与。虚拟货币类案件同属于网络犯罪案件，从控告方的角度来说要证实全案的难度之一就是如何将网络中虚拟的参与者具象化、客观化、实体化。因为即使有微信聊天记录、投资记录、发展下线记录等，如果不能对应到具体真实的张三李四等个人，那么是很难直接作为定罪量刑的证据的。
II is structured to determine whether the distribution level and number requirements are met. The building blocks of the distribution offence are that there must be three or more layers of structure and more than 30 people involved in the distribution model. Virtual currency cases are also cybercrime cases, and one of the difficulties in proving the whole case from the point of view of the complainant is how to visualize, objective, and physicalize virtual participants in the network.
币圈的传销案件有个特征就是推广的下线并不是按照人头计算，而是根据新注册的钱包地址来计算，这里就有一个问题：每一个新注册的钱包地址并不等于发展的新的下线，因为理论上一个人可以注册无限多个钱包地址，那么如何认定被发展的下线（钱包地址）就是对应一个真实的人呢？司法机关必须要给出充足的证据才行。
One of the characteristics of currency circulation cases is that the promotion downlink is not based on head count, but on the newly registered wallet address. Here is the question: each newly registered wallet address does not amount to a new downline for development, because in theory a person can register an unlimited number of wallet addresses, so how can it be assumed that the downlink (the wallet address) developed corresponds to a real person? The judiciary has to give sufficient evidence.
三是考察返利模式有无逐级返利或团队计酬。逐级返利或团队计酬也是传销犯罪的基础构成要件，但是现实中很多币圈的涉传销案件并没有直接的逐级返利或团队计酬，也就是本质上没有上线对下线的剥削。一些币圈传销案件中，组织者对推广、发展下线（注册新的钱包地址参与投资）的人员（实质上为钱包地址）采取空投奖励等方式会被认定为传销犯罪意义上的“返利”。如果辩护人可以证明该空投并非来源于被发展下线的投资金额，那么就不应当认定为传销犯罪上的返利。
III examines whether the return model is a step-by-step return or team pay.
四是电子证据、鉴定意见的辩护。币圈刑事案件中除了嫌疑人/被告人供述、证人证言、被害人陈述等言辞证据外，必不可少的两大类证据就是电子数据和鉴定意见。而且这两类证据所起的作用至关重要，但是从刘律师参与辩护的多起币圈案件尤其是传销类案件来看，所有案件的电子证据及鉴定意见都存在或多或少的问题，关于电子证据的辩护问题感兴趣的朋友可以参考刘律之前的文章《xxx》；对于鉴定意见来说，至少有司法会计鉴定和电子数据鉴定两种，对于鉴定意见的辩护可以关注的点有：鉴定机构、鉴定人员的资质问题；检材的移送、获取、内容问题（比如鉴定机构大量采用嫌疑人的口供作出的鉴定意见应当建议法院不予采信）；鉴定过程的合规性（链上数据的分析、钱包地址的层级分析、钱包地址与真人的对应问题等等）。 虽然说自“9.24通知”（《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》）以后，在中国内地发行虚拟货币违反监管规定，但是并不代表着发币就必然等同于违法甚至犯罪。具体的判定标准应当回归到我国刑法的具体规定上来，以罪刑法定为基本原则来审视之，而非先入为主式地一看到发行虚拟货币就先内心认定其构成犯罪，然后再想尽办法以“总有一款罪名适合你”的心态翻刑法典来定罪量刑。 Although the issuance of a virtual currency in China and China since the “Notification 9.24” (Notification on the Further Prevention and Treatment of the Risk of Virtual Currency Transactions) violates regulatory requirements, it does not necessarily mean that the issuance of a currency is tantamount to an offence or even an offence. The specific criteria for the determination should revert to the specific provisions of our criminal code, which should be considered as a basic principle, rather than first considering it as a crime in the first place, and then trying to find a way to criminalize it in a “one-offence” mentality. 墨守成规是法律的本性，但打破现状是科技的使命。刘律师希望司法机关对于新兴科技心怀适度宽容，而非一味打压。最近和朋友聊天时谈起近代以来几乎所有推进人类进步的科技发明似乎都不见国人的身影，也许在web3.0时代会有一些改变，要确定这些改变能够实现，不仅要靠科技创业者的奋斗，更需要一个稳定、和善的法治环境提供支持。 It is the essence of the law, but breaking the status quo is the mission of science and technology . Counsel would like the judiciary to be moderate in its tolerance of emerging technologies, rather than to stifling it. Talk to friends recently about almost all recent technological inventions that have advanced human progress seems to be invisible to the nation. There may be changes in the Web3.0 era to make sure that these changes can be achieved not only through the struggle of science and technology entrepreneurs, but also through the need for a stable and good environment of law and order.
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论