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.