Those engaged in OTC USDT collection are mostly afraid of two questions from the case-handling authorities: first, where the funds came from; second, at what price you bought. The source of funds may not be easy to investigate, but the purchase price is almost always verifiable — every consideration is clearly recorded on-chain and in bank statements.
But price itself has never been a crime; buying cheap is not a crime, and selling dear is not a crime. Buying low and selling high is the commercial logic of this kind of business. Yet over the past decade or so, abnormal pricing has consistently been the case-handling authorities' handiest lever for inferring subjective knowledge.
Now that lever has loosened:On August 20, 2024, 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 Money Laundering came into effect. The enumerated presumption clause in the old interpretation — that "purchasing property at a price clearly below market price without justified reason may establish knowledge" — was repealed and replaced by comprehensive examination and judgment of all facts in the case. 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 Covering Up or Concealing Criminal Proceeds or the Proceeds of Criminal Proceeds, which officially came into effect on August 26, 2025, adopted the same rule.
As a result, the price of collecting and selling USDT is no longer a shortcut that can directly presume criminal liability.
I. The evidentiary status of price: the crime of assisting information network criminal activities still retains a presumption rule, while covering up or concealing criminal proceeds and money laundering have shifted to comprehensive determination
Price itself is not written into the provisions on criminal charges in criminal law, but it is a core factual element in judicial practice for determining the actor's subjective knowledge.
What is a legal presumption? Simply put: judicial authorities need not directly prove that the actor actually knew in his heart; as long as the objective abnormal circumstances listed in the judicial interpretation are satisfied, subjective knowledge may first be presumed, and the burden then shifts to the party to submit contrary evidence to rebut it.
Under the rule system for the crime of assisting information network criminal activities, this enumerated presumption rule remains effective to this day.Pursuant to Article 11 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 such as Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assisting Information Network Criminal Activities, the judicial interpretation lists seven circumstances under which it may be determined that a person "knew that another person was using an information network to commit a crime," the third of which is "the transaction price or method is clearly abnormal." The provision also leaves an opening: "unless there is contrary evidence." This presumption remains in force today.
However, the adjudicative approach to the crime of covering up or concealing criminal proceeds and the crime of money laundering has undergone major adjustment. Article 2 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 Covering Up or Concealing Criminal Proceeds or the Proceeds of Criminal Proceeds, which officially came into effect on August 26, 2025, expressly provides that determining "knowledge" shall be based on the information the actor came into contact with or received, the circumstances of handling another person's criminal proceeds and the proceeds thereof, the type and amount of the criminal proceeds and the proceeds thereof, the manner of transfer or conversion of the criminal proceeds and the proceeds thereof, abnormal circumstances of the transaction conduct and fund accounts, and, in light of the actor's professional experience, his relationship with the upstream offender, and his statements and defenses, shall be comprehensively examined and judged. No fixed objective-circumstance presumption clause is retained.
Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Money Laundering likewise establishes an adjudicative approach based on comprehensive examination and judgment.
This change is also consistent with earlier judicial positions. In March 2022, the Third Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court, the Fourth Procuratorial Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security issued the Meeting Minutes on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the "Card Disconnection" Campaign, which stated that determining subjective knowledge must adhere to the principle of unity of the subjective and objective, give full weight to the actor's defense, and eliminate simple objective imputation.
II. Price Alone May Not Stand Out, but Combined with Abnormal Transaction Methods It May Be Fatal
Although the rules have been tightened, the evidentiary weight of price in judicial precedents has not disappeared. Price itself is often merely a point of suspicion; what truly supports the inference of subjective knowledge is the interlocking and mutual corroboration of abnormal price and abnormal transaction methods.
The Xiao case in Changning, Shanghai, is a very typical example.
Xiao purchased large quantities of USDT off-exchange at a price 2 cents above the exchange market price and resold them at a markup of 5 cents. In the prosecutor's case analysis, what the case-handling authorities focused on was not merely the price spread itself but the entire abnormal transaction pattern: the actor deliberately bypassed formal and mature virtual currency trading platforms, used the overseas covert messaging software TG, which features self-destructing messages, to communicate, chose remote locations for offline meetings, and directly collected cash to complete transactions, with the overall transaction process highly designed to evade regulation and monitoring. In November 2023, the court ultimately sentenced Xiao to three years and three months' imprisonment for the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds.
Breaking down this case makes it very clear:
Viewed in isolation, a 2-cent premium is not actually jarring against the daily market fluctuations of USDT; merely meeting offline to collect cash could also be defended as an off-exchange trading custom that has existed in the crypto community since early years. But once the two types of abnormality are superimposed—bypassing platforms for transactions, using covert social tools for contact, and offline cash settlement—and combined with a transaction price that deviates from the norm, the combination of multiple leads forms a complete chain of facts from which it can be inferred that the person "should have known the proceeds were criminal proceeds."
In judicial practice, there are almost no precedents in which knowledge for the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds is directly found based solely on abnormal price. Price is more like one link in the chain of evidence; it can only raise a question. Whether subjective knowledge can ultimately be found often depends on whether abnormal conduct simultaneously appears on the other side of the transaction.
One more point to note: abnormal price is a two-way risk.It is not only low-price USDT purchases that warrant vigilance. If a counterparty is willing to buy USDT from you at a price clearly above the market, that is likewise an extremely high criminal-risk signal for you as the seller of USDT.
III. After the Inference Is Removed: A Low Price Alone Cannot Establish "Knowledge"
After the enumerated presumption rule was abolished, if the case-handling authority relies solely on the single fact of a 'low acquisition price' to establish the actor's subjective knowledge, that position cannot be sustained under the current judicial rules.
First, the judicial interpretation does not set any quantitative standard for what constitutes a 'significant deviation from the market price.'There is no nationally unified numerical red line for price differentials, and a single price-differential figure cannot be used to directly infer that the actor subjectively knew the subject matter of the transaction was proceeds of crime. The level of price is itself affected by multiple factors, including market conditions, transaction scale, delivery method and supply-demand relationships. A price differential can only serve as a suspicious lead and cannot be directly equated with subjective culpability.
Second, 'cautious use of presumptions and rejection of objective imputation' is the official adjudicative approach expressly set out in the new judicial interpretation.Luo Guoliang, Chief Judge of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court, emphasized in his interpretation of the new interpretation on the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds under Judicial Interpretation No. 13 of 2025 that, for persons at the end of a criminal chain who act at another's direction and use their own bank cards to carry out transfers, cash-outs or withdrawals, it is difficult for the actor to know that the funds are proceeds of crime, and particular caution must be exercised in finding such persons guilty of the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds. In cases involving bank cards, it is also necessary to prevent the 'one-size-fits-all' practice of disregarding the subjective elements of the offense and uniformly finding the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds merely because transfer, cash-out or withdrawal conduct appears suspicious.This spirit of cautious adjudication applies equally to cases involving crypto assets.
Third, in judicial practice there are also real case-handling examples that corroborate this rule.In a successfully defended case handled by King & Capital Law Firm and publicly disclosed in July 2026, the investigative authority initially sought to infer the client's subjective knowledge on the grounds that the client had acquired USDT at a low price and used accounts not held in the client's own name for transfers. Defense counsel submitted complete bank statements in rebuttal, proving that the client's actual expenditure in acquiring the USDT exceeded the amount received, that objectively there was almost no profit, and that the price differential involved was merely normal market fluctuation in virtual currency. The case was ultimately withdrawn on the ground that there was no criminal fact.
Note: The acquittal outcome in that case was supported by the core fact that 'the price differential constituted normal market fluctuation'; it was not that the client was acquitted 'because there was no profit.'The crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds does not require the actor's profit as a constitutive element. Even where a transaction yields a normal and reasonable price-differential return, so long as a commercially logical explanation can be provided, subjective knowledge still cannot be directly presumed on the basis of price alone.
Lawyer Observations
First, at the time a transaction occurs, proactively retain evidence capable of explaining the 'legitimate reasons' for the price.Screenshots of platform listings, real-time market quotations, complete price-negotiation chat records, and proof of the source of one's own funds may appear at the time of the transaction to be nothing more than ordinary business practice, but once drawn into a criminal investigation, they are key evidence for rebutting subjective knowledge.
Second, be especially alert to business orders in which price anomalies and transaction-method anomalies appear at the same time.The same slightly-below-market transaction: where the transaction is completed within a legitimate platform, the risk is relatively manageable; but where the counterparty requests a price slightly below market while also proposing offline cash settlement and avoiding leaving traces on the platform, the criminal risk of the latter is multiplied.
Third, once investigated by the case-handling authorities, respond in accordance with the approach of the new judicial interpretation.Do not fall into the passive defensive line of "my purchase price was indeed on the low side"; instead, focus on whether the price anomaly has a reasonable explanation and whether the anomalous features of the transaction can be excluded by normal commercial logic, and apply the new interpretation's rule of "using presumptions with caution and determining knowledge on a comprehensive review of the whole case" in the defense response.
Cheap USDT and expensive USDT are not inherently culpable; the true source of criminal risk lies in being unable to explain the reasonable basis behind the price.
