China law

Policy Regula

2026-08-09 12:50:40

Lawyer outlines when building encrypted chat apps could amount to aiding cybercrime

WuBlockchain reposted an article by lawyer Shao Shiwei examining when developers of encrypted messaging software could face criminal liability for aiding information-network crimes under Chinese law. The piece argues that writing and delivering chat software, even with end-to-end encryption, disappearing messages, or two-way message recall, does not by itself establish the offense. The legal hinge is whether the developer knew others were using the network to commit crimes, still provided technical support, and did so under serious circumstances. The article contrasts two cases. In a Changchun case included in the China Courts 2024 annual cases, developers who helped build, maintain, and later sell chat software, while allowing fake customer-service identities to be attached to accounts, were convicted. In a separate case handled by Shao’s team in Shanghai, a technology company that delivered a website framework under a formal contract, did not keep operating access, and did not continue maintenance was not approved for arrest, and the case was later dropped. The article says investigators typically infer “knowing” from objective facts rather than admissions. They look at customer identity, payment methods including USDT settlement, backend access, compliance documents, feature design, maintenance work after delivery, user-report handling, and whether the software was adjusted to evade takedowns or regulatory scrutiny.

1950

helping infor

2026-08-03 10:10:11

Lawyer argues Help-Info-Network-Crime charges require an upstream offense carried out through information networks

A MarsBit commentary by lawyer Shao Shiwei uses a case involving alleged illegal foreign-exchange dealing through virtual currency to argue that a failure to prove illegal business operations does not automatically justify a fallback charge of helping information-network criminal activity. Shao says the upstream conduct in such cases must itself qualify as a crime "committed through information networks," rather than a traditional offline offense that merely used tools such as WeChat, Telegram, online banking, or virtual currency somewhere in the process. The article says existing legal and judicial documents governing the offense do not directly define what "using information networks to commit a crime" means. On that basis, Shao argues prosecutors should have to prove that threshold element instead of treating it as self-evident. His proposed test is that the information network must play a substantial and central role in the execution stage of the upstream offense. If the network appears only in contact, planning, or post-offense disposal while the core criminal conduct is completed offline, the requirement is not met. The piece also reviews three broad approaches seen in practice and academic debate: a broad reading, a restrictive reading, and a middle-ground view. Shao says his position is closer to the restrictive and middle-ground approaches. A follow-up article, according to the piece, will analyze three typical matching foreign-exchange models in more detail.

430