"Some friends around me have USDT they want to exchange for RMB, and some friends are new to this circle and want to buy some USDT to test the waters, so I introduce them to each other and let them negotiate and conclude the deal themselves. No introduction fee was mentioned beforehand, and afterward they usually take the initiative to send a red packet; because I know quite a few friends, the red packets I receive each month can amount to over ten thousand yuan."
I have never touched the money, never touched the coins, and never even looked at their accounts. Is there any criminal risk in this situation?
Recently, Brother Hua has been asked the same question by several friends.
I. Acting as an intermediary to introduce a sale has already been written into the legal provisions
Article 312 of the Criminal Law provides for the crime of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds; Article 1 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 Concealing or Disguising Criminal Proceeds and the Proceeds Thereof (Fa Shi [2025] No. 13), effective August 26, 2025, also states clearly that where a person, knowing that the property is criminal proceeds and the proceeds thereof, adoptsacting as an intermediary to introduce a saleand other methods to conceal or disguise them, such conduct shall be determined to be the act of perpetrating this crime.
In other words, as long as you know that the property is criminal proceeds, merely bringing the buyer and seller together and facilitating the transaction of the illicit property may itself constitute a crime. It is not only "handling" the property that constitutes a crime; the step of "connecting the parties" is already the act of perpetrating.
Making a profit is not a prerequisite for criminalization, nor is whether one handled the property. Therefore, an objective description of conduct such as "I only introduced them to each other" cannot achieve an effective defense.
However, what we address here is criminal proceeds. Merely connecting the parties is not in itself unlawful. Two points determine the direction of the matter: the legal nature of the matter being introduced, and how much you knew at the time.
II. Under what circumstances does it constitute a criminal offense
You know that the source of the money or coins is problematic, yet you still connect the parties.For example, if you know that your friend A's USDT is the proceeds of telecom fraud or online gambling, and you introduce friend B, who wants to buy crypto, to A and facilitate the exchange, the connection you make is precisely one link in the laundering of illicit proceeds.
(1) A claim of "no consideration" does not affect the establishment of the offense
The elements of the offense of concealing or disguising criminal proceeds are "knowing that the property is criminal proceeds + carrying out an act of concealment or disguise." Neither the statutory text nor the judicial interpretations list "receiving remuneration" as a prerequisite for criminal liability from beginning to end; so long as one knows the property is criminal proceeds and still acts as an intermediary, liability is established whether or not consideration is paid.
"No consideration" merely indicates that no remuneration was agreed upon in advance; it does not mean that one did not participate in the conduct at issue, nor that one lacked knowledge. At most, it may be taken into account as a discretionary mitigating factor at sentencing, but it cannot prevent the establishment of the offense.
(2) Receiving red packets amounting to tens of thousands per month does not necessarily constitute a crime
"Red packet income of tens of thousands per month"—this statement in fact already lays bare the nature of the red packets. This is not an occasional exchange of gifts; it is continuous income stably tied to the matchmaking conduct. Once the red packets form a fixed correspondence with the introductions—one introduction, one payment, exceeding ten thousand every month—the essence is post hoc intermediary commission.
Having income does not equal being guilty. Ultimately, it still depends on what the conduct being introduced is, what you know, and whether the threshold for criminal liability is met. However, "red packet income of tens of thousands per month" will not help on any path to guilt; it will only add weight.
Even if no criminal offense is ultimately established, the red packets already received also constitute illegal gains and are at risk of being recovered.
(3) The real boundary of risk lies not in "whether money or crypto was touched," but in "whether one knew and whether one helped"
Criminal law assesses your "subjective knowledge" and "objective assistance," not whether you have held money or touched crypto.
Whether you knew that the money or crypto was criminal proceeds, and whether you helped launder it, is the dividing line.
Many people are undone by the self-reassurance that "I never handled the money anyway," when in fact the act of introduction itself already completes one link in "concealing or disguising."
In practice, case handlers do not determine "knowledge" solely on the basis of the parties' statements; they often make a comprehensive inference based on objective conduct: a transaction price significantly deviating from the market, demands for cash settlement, frequent changes of social media accounts, transactions deliberately structured to circumvent exchanges, and continuously and steadily obtaining high-value red-packet returns — all of these become important bases for judicial authorities to determine that one "should have known."
(4) Prior participation in discussions makes one an accomplice, which is far more serious than the crime of concealing or disguising
Where a person conspires in advance with a perpetrator of theft, robbery, fraud, snatching or other such acts to conceal or disguise the proceeds of crime and the gains derived therefrom, and this constitutes a crime, the person shall be punished as an accomplice to the crime of theft, robbery, fraud, snatching or the like, as the case may be.
If convicted solely of the crime of concealing or disguising, the statutory penalty is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and where the circumstances are serious, not less than three years but not more than seven years; once prior conspiracy is established, the person must be dealt with as an accomplice to the upstream offense, and the sentencing range is directly tied to the amount involved.
(5) Not constituting a crime does not mean there are no consequences.
In such cases, administrative and criminal tracks run in parallel. In a cross-border virtual-currency offsetting and foreign-exchange conversion illegal business case handled by the Shanghai procuratorial authorities, four of the nine persons brought in were given relative non-prosecution decisions on the grounds of minor circumstances and voluntary admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment, and the case-handling authorities promptly initiated reverse administrative-criminal linkage and submitted recommendations for administrative penalties to the foreign exchange administration department.
After non-prosecution, consequences such as fines and confiscation of illegal gains may still remain.
III. Lawyer's Recommendations
First, not taking money and not handling funds cannot replace prior screening. Introduce only within relationships where you can confirm identity and the source of funds; do not collect or pay on others' behalf, do not hold coins on others' behalf, do not provide accounts, do not provide guarantees, and do not promise exchange rates.
Second, refuse "channel-type" requests outright. If someone asks you to introduce a channel for receiving USDT and paying RMB, or asks to borrow your card or route funds through your account, such requests have already crossed the line; they are entirely different from introducing two acquaintances to exchange currency.
Third, stop immediately when abnormal signals appear. If the price clearly deviates from the market, cash or another person's account is specified, the counterparty avoids revealing their true identity, or someone's account has been frozen — stop as soon as any of these signals appears.
