ChainCatcher, citing Procuratorial Daily, reported that researchers from the Yuhu District People’s Procuratorate in Xiangtan, Hunan, and the Law School division of Xiangtan University jointly published an article on criminal-law challenges tied to money laundering involving virtual currencies. The article said judicial practice is facing three main difficulties: how to classify conduct under existing criminal provisions, how to obtain usable evidence when mixers, privacy coins and cross-chain transfers break up the evidentiary trail, and how to recover illicit assets when legal characterization, procedural rules and cross-border cooperation remain unclear or inconsistent. It noted that Article 191 of China’s Criminal Law still limits the predicate offenses for money laundering to seven categories, leaving many cases to be handled under the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds. The authors proposed a package of measures, including pursuing parallel case reviews, recognizing a principle of self-authentication for blockchain data, building a tiered standard of proof, setting up a national custody and disposal platform for seized virtual currencies, and promoting a dedicated international criminal judicial assistance agreement for virtual-currency-related crimes.
Three pressure points identified in crypto laundering cases
ChainCatcher reported, citing Procuratorial Daily, that researchers from the Yuhu District People’s Procuratorate in Xiangtan, Hunan, and Xiangtan University’s law faculty jointly published an article proposing a systematic response to criminal-law enforcement challenges in cases involving money laundering through virtual currencies.
The article said current judicial practice faces three core problems. First, Article 191 of the Criminal Law still limits the predicate offenses for money laundering to seven categories, which leaves many cases to be handled as the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds. Second, tools and methods such as mixers, privacy coins and cross-chain transfers can fragment the evidentiary chain, making traditional investigative methods hard to apply. Third, conflicting views on the legal status of virtual currencies, gaps in procedural rules and barriers to cross-border cooperation have made asset recovery difficult.
Proposed measures include evidence rules and a custody platform
To address those issues, the article proposed pursuing “dual-track” case reviews, establishing a principle of self-authentication for blockchain data, creating a tiered standard of proof, and building a national platform to custody and dispose of virtual currencies involved in cases. It also called for work on a dedicated international criminal judicial assistance agreement covering crimes related to virtual currencies.
This article was originally published by Bit.Fan. For more cryptocurrency news and market insights, visit www.bit.fan. Disclaimer:
The market information, project data, and third-party content displayed on this platform are for industry information sharing only and do not constitute any form of investment advice or return commitment.
Cryptocurrency trading carries high risks. Users should fully assess their risk tolerance and make independent decisions. All profits, losses, and legal responsibilities are borne by the users themselves.
