Author: Xiao Sa lawyer

The lawyer of Sa Jie's team found in the process of handling coin-related cases that an undeniable fact is that the personnel who have not been in contact with coin-related cases may regard the coin circle as a ferocious beast; once they have handled related cases, they often start to learn relevant knowledge and even rush to handle coin circle cases when they appear, and some personnel even choose to take the initiative to find cases…

So, can cryptocurrency be used for bribery? If national government personnel take advantage of the difficult supervision, easy transfer, and huge value of encrypted assets to accept bribes, can it be considered as bribery or other traditional official crimes when it is clear in our country that cryptocurrency is not legal tender?

Today, Sa Jie's team will talk about the situation of using cryptocurrency to commit official crimes.

The official who accepted 6000 bitcoins as bribes, fortunately the crime was committed early

As mentioned earlier, since the technical characteristics of cryptocurrency itself make it difficult to trace and manage, it is naturally a very convenient tool for money laundering and asset transfer. Therefore, in theory, it can also be used for bribery and other official crimes.

However, in judicial practice, there have been very few cases of bribery or official crimes involving cryptocurrency exposed. Sa Jie's team believes that this may be partly due to the fact that cryptocurrency itself has a certain technical threshold, making it "inconvenient" for most leading cadres to use; on the other hand, the price fluctuations of Bitcoin and Ethereum are large. If one is unlucky, the coins given to the "leader" may depreciate significantly, which is embarrassing.

However, in the history of the development of encrypted assets in our country, there is a very well-known "pioneer": Xiao Yi, former Vice Chairman of the Jiangxi Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and Secretary of the Fuzhou Municipal Party Committee, who was rumored to have accepted a bribe of up to 6000 bitcoins.

From 2017 to 2021, Xiao Yi, using his position as the Secretary of the Fuzhou Municipal Party Committee, became acquainted with Lin, the actual controller of Genesis Technology Co., Ltd., a big shot in the coin circle, and carried out a wave of power realization. Specifically, Xiao Yi used his authority to introduce Genesis Technology Co., Ltd., controlled by Lin, as a key enterprise in Fuzhou, publicly claiming to "build the largest single data center in Asia," but in reality, he tacitly allowed Genesis Technology Co., Ltd. to secretly build a huge "mining farm" for Bitcoin mining in Fuzhou. Moreover, Xiao Yi also provided a large amount of financial subsidies, funding support, and most importantly, power guarantee for Genesis Technology Co., Ltd.

Lin, of course, returned the favor by "giving" Xiao Yi a large number of bitcoins produced from mining (rumored to be more than 6000). During the first trial, it was found that Xiao Yi accepted bribes totaling more than 125 million yuan. Based on this, on August 22, 2023, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province publicly sentenced Xiao Yi, former member of the Party Group and Vice Chairman of the Jiangxi Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, for accepting bribes and abusing his power to life imprisonment. Unfortunately, from public channels, the details of Xiao Yi's bribery cannot be seen, only a passing mention of "illegally accepting property totaling more than 125 million yuan."

So, why does Sa Jie's team say it's fortunate that this case was sentenced early? According to Article 388 of the "Criminal Law" of our country, for the crime of accepting bribes, if the amount involved is more than three million yuan and causes particularly serious losses to the state and the people, the death penalty can be imposed. Assuming that Xiao Yi did indeed accept 6000 bitcoins, calculated at today's market price, the amount of his bribery has exceeded 200 million yuan. If the price continues to rise, it is likely to exceed 1 billion in the future.

Judicial practice generally believes that 1 billion is the "life and death line" for bribery cases of public officials in our country, as shown in the recent two cases.

It can be seen that if encrypted assets continue to appreciate, Xiao Yi's bribery amount may be extremely high, even reaching the "life and death line."

Is it considered bribery in our country if only encrypted currency is accepted as a gift?

Although it is rumored that a large part of the property that Xiao Yi accepted as bribes was in the form of encrypted assets, from public channels, we cannot directly query the exact information. Therefore, it is necessary for us to seriously discuss a question: if national government personnel accept gifts only in the form of encrypted currency, does it constitute bribery in our country?

This first requires solving a problem: whether cryptocurrency has the property attributes of criminal law.

From the current judicial practice, Sa Jie's team believes that cryptocurrency has the property attributes of criminal law and can be the object of property crimes.

According to the Supreme People's Court's "Criminal Trial Reference" No. 1569 of the 138th issue, in the case of Zhang's robbery, the Supreme Court believes that property includes tangible property and property interests. Whether cryptocurrency has the property attributes of criminal law depends on whether it has the characteristics of property in criminal law, namely, the possibility of management, the possibility of transfer, and value.

(1) Cryptocurrency, held by the owner through passwords, keys, has the possibility of possession, control, and management of cryptocurrency; (2) Cryptocurrency realizes the buying, selling, circulation, and currency exchange between different subjects through trading platforms, with the possibility of transfer; (3) The acquisition of cryptocurrency requires payment of corresponding labor or costs, and has value (including transaction value and utility value).

Therefore, virtual currency has the general characteristics of property in criminal law, has the property attributes of criminal law, and is a kind of "property" in the sense of criminal law.

So, does cryptocurrency meet the legal definition of "property" in the field of official crimes? Sa Jie's team believes that in judicial practice, it can probably be interpreted as a kind of "property interest."

In practice, the definition of "property" in official crimes in our country is very broad. Simply put, as long as something has value, it can become "property" in official crimes. According to Article 12 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery," the "property" in bribery crimes includes currency, goods, and property interests. Property interests include material benefits that can be converted into currency, such as house decoration and debt relief, as well as other benefits that require payment of currency, such as membership services and travel.

Therefore, although there is currently no public case of using cryptocurrency for bribery in judicial practice (it is rumored that some undisclosed cases involving the acceptance of bribes using cryptocurrency by public security personnel have appeared), in our opinion, the use of encrypted assets as a tool to convey benefits to national government personnel can constitute the crime of accepting bribes.

Conclusion

With the popularization and expansion of the application scope of cryptocurrency, its role in official crimes is becoming more prominent. The anonymity and global circulation of cryptocurrency make it a tool for some criminals to bribe and launder money. Although our country's laws clearly stipulate that cryptocurrency is not legal tender, its property attributes and value make it recognized as the object of property crimes in judicial practice, and can thus constitute official crimes.

In conclusion, Sa Jie's team reminds everyone that encrypted assets are not a shield against official crimes. Paper can never cover fire, and even the most concealed means cannot leave no trace. Nowadays, third-party blockchain companies can already conduct relatively accurate tracking through facial data. Do not blindly "trust" the anonymity function of blockchain.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。