The contradiction of shifting blame under anti-fraud measures, with cash-out individuals becoming scapegoats!!!

Originally, the opposing parties in fraud were the victims and the scammers. In the past, as long as the scammers were caught, all contradictions could be resolved.

Now, however, because scammers cannot be caught, the opposing parties have become the victims and the primary and secondary cardholders involved in the case.

The contradiction has not been resolved; it has merely been shifted.

Victims believe they have been defrauded, and it is entirely reasonable for them to seek to recover their losses;

The primary and secondary cardholders involved are mostly not scammers anymore, but rather individuals who have taken out loans to launder money, engaged in online gambling, or ordinary people who sold some virtual currency. However, if they refund the victims, they end up suffering double losses. In many cases, these ordinary individuals genuinely intended to use their funds for medical expenses, business turnover, or were left with only a small amount of money when they were ready to exit after suffering losses.

Of course, this has led many to say that there are even those who sell anxiety online: paying for awareness.

When it comes to virtual currency trading, there is no such thing as making money effortlessly in this society. Why should you be able to easily make a fortune just by buying some coins? Every successful trader has fought their way up, and even if they haven't faced severe penalties (like illegal operations or aiding and abetting), they have still suffered losses (like frozen cards), which ultimately serve as evidence of their disability (criminal knowledge).

In this game that is destined to be a zero-sum situation, contradictions will not disappear; they will only shift.

After all, it’s better for a friend to die than for a monk to die:

If you lose in online gambling, you report it and ask the crypto circle brother to cover the losses;

If you face liquidation in contracts, you ask the crypto merchant brother to cover the losses;

If you fail in investments, you ask the promoter or good brother to cover the losses;

If a pig-butchering scam runs away, you ask the KOL who called the shots to cover the losses;

If you have a pig-butchering romance and break up, you ask the cardholder to cover the losses.

But is all of this reasonable? Is there a limit, uncles? Indeed, those who are truly involved in money laundering and are forced to refund in full have no problem because they were already prepared to take risks when they engaged in this activity. The saying goes, "Fortune favors the bold," so you must also bear the risk of being forced to refund.

However, for ordinary cardholders involved in foreign trade, simple USDT transactions, or even currency exchange transactions, if they are required to bear full refund responsibilities for the involved cards (whoever has money pays), it is too heavy a burden from both a legal and moral standpoint.

In the era of nationwide anti-fraud, the promotion of legal knowledge is a long way to go!

Anti-fraud is not as simple as putting up a few slogans at the elevator entrance; it requires all business owners and employees to learn, similar to fire safety training.

The vast majority of business owners have not provided anti-fraud training for their employees, and many owners themselves are unaware. Places like liquor stores, mobile phone shops, second-hand car dealerships, gold shops, luxury second-hand stores, as well as mahjong parlors, tea houses, flower shops, scalpers, and purchasing agents—anywhere there is a financial transaction—can potentially involve money laundering activities, which can lead ordinary people to bear the costs.

The current frozen cards are essentially forcing everyone to engage in anti-fraud measures, requiring every cardholder to strictly verify the source of funds.

Remember, do not accept any funds from strangers, and do not give your card number to any strangers. Nowadays, almost all physical businesses do not require card-to-card transfers; payments are made through third-party payment companies and their collection devices. For large transactions, such as luxury second-hand goods, second-hand cars, and second-hand houses, it is essential to strictly verify customer information, and it is best to check the flow of funds, as absolute profits can lead to real-name black payments.

To be fair, it is too demanding to require ordinary cardholders to exercise verification duties from the perspective of professional legal personnel or bank risk control; 99% of them cannot do it. Moreover, some industries already have potential rules, and cardholders' recognition of these default rules is much higher than their understanding of the law.

However, why should ordinary people bear the costs for the victims of telecom fraud?

In the past, fraud victims knew they could not catch the scammers, and their money was essentially lost. They might become more cautious afterward. Now, although scammers cannot be caught, losses can be indirectly recovered from the primary and secondary cardholders involved. Especially in criminal proceedings, the refund from frozen cards is much more direct and forceful than victims suing primary cardholders in civil proceedings to recover losses.

The question is, do victims have no fault at all? Are you a fool?

Civil law emphasizes distinguishing each party's fault before deciding on the proportion of compensation, while criminal law almost ignores this. Full refunds from primary involved cardholders seem to have become the unchanging main theme during the investigation phase.

There is a very obvious problem here. Is it true that victims bear no fault? If they do, who will bear the victims' fault?

To be honest, those involved in romance scams, IQ taxes from order brushing, or those who impulsively engage in online gambling have nothing to do with the crypto circle, yet they are somehow connected by the scammers' schemes. Such romance scams generally last a long time, often for several months, with victims' money being guided by scammers to buy coins on exchanges and then transferred to the scammers.

The investigation only begins when the scam is realized, while the scammers have long since celebrated their success. The money is bought as USDT through exchanges, sent to crypto merchants, and then the merchants send the money to retail investors.

From the start, the direction of the investigation was wrong, but what can be done? I am the fish, and I am at the mercy of the butcher!!

A purely personal suggestion, of course, not to be taken as any basis:

In the future, for cardholders involved in cases who are truly innocent, the maximum refund should be 50%, and for secondary cardholders, a maximum of 20%. Furthermore, if I have fulfilled my verification duties and made good-faith reminders, but still cannot stop someone from rushing into what they believe is a money-making dream, ultimately demanding a full refund from you, then be firm; I will not unlock the card and will not refund you in full. If you were scammed, shouldn't you bear some responsibility? If I received black money without proper verification, I bear the cost and lose half. If you were scammed through nudity, pig-butchering, or were warned not to invest in pig-butchering virtual currencies but insisted on doing so, shouldn't you bear some responsibility for being scammed?

I sincerely ask all anti-fraud departments and the uncles working on the front lines to consider that we are also victims.

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。