Changes and Reflections on Law Enforcement Trends in the Virtual Money Field

In recent years, a law enforcement phenomenon known as "ocean fishing" has emerged in the field of virtual money. This practice mainly refers to law enforcement agencies in certain regions conducting cross-province law enforcement, not solely for the purpose of combating crime or upholding the law, but more for revenue generation.

This phenomenon is particularly evident in cases related to Virtual Money, most of which appear in the form of criminal cases. From the perspective of criminal defense, there are several debatable issues in these cases regarding the procedures such as filing a case, jurisdiction, and handling of the property involved, as well as in the substantive aspects such as the determination of criminal composition and the definition of charges.

The domestic strong regulatory policies on Virtual Money have led some grassroots law enforcement agencies to tend to view activities related to Virtual Money as illegal crimes. Coupled with the fact that there are indeed some high-net-worth individuals in the Virtual Money sector, the combination of these two factors has resulted in law enforcement agencies cracking down on the Virtual Money field with the same intensity as traditional economic crimes.

However, since March of this year, this situation seems to have changed. There are reports that relevant departments have issued new regulations on the jurisdiction of cross-province enterprise-related criminal cases, imposing stricter requirements on public security organs handling such cases across provinces. This policy change has also caused a noticeable reaction within the Virtual Money circle.

In the field of Virtual Money, common criminal cases involve organizing and leading pyramid schemes, operating casinos, illegal business practices, assisting in cybercrime, and concealing criminal proceeds, among other offenses. Additionally, traditional crimes such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes also occur from time to time.

It is worth noting that crimes related to virtual money can mostly be classified as cyber crimes, and the jurisdiction of cyber crimes is quite broad. According to current regulations, cyber crimes not only include traditional computer crimes but also encompass crimes related to the internet and other crimes committed through the internet.

In terms of jurisdiction, in addition to the place where the crime occurred, it may also involve multiple locations such as the residence of the suspect, the location of the network server, the location of the network service provider, and the location of the damaged system. This broad jurisdiction means that even if the law enforcement agency in one place does not file a case, others may still do so.

Although the new regulations impose restrictions on the jurisdiction of cross-provincial enterprise-related cases, many virtual money cases do not involve enterprises and therefore may not be affected by this regulation. This means that the phenomenon of "distant fishing" in the virtual money sector is unlikely to be completely eliminated in the short term.

Since the introduction of relevant regulatory policies in 2017, the trend of overseas migration in the Virtual Money industry has been ongoing. In the Web3 field, the controversy surrounding Virtual Money and blockchain technology has never ceased. Even Singapore, which has a relatively high degree of financial openness, will soon implement new Web3 policies that mainly affect the Virtual Money sector.

Virtual Money is inherently decentralized, which creates an irreconcilable conflict with centralized regulation. The ideal situation may be for regulatory agencies and decentralization supporters to adapt to each other, find a balance point, and achieve coexistence and development.