The Judicial Regulatory Dilemma and Prospects of the Virtual Money Industry

In recent years, the virtual money industry has faced increasingly stringent regulatory environments. Some local judicial authorities have begun conducting interprovincial law enforcement, a practice that industry insiders have jokingly referred to as "ocean fishing." The purpose of this law enforcement method is not solely to combat crime or uphold the law, but rather carries a more revenue-generating nature.

In the field of Virtual Money, this situation is particularly common, with most cases appearing in the form of criminal cases. From the perspective of criminal defense, many cases involving Virtual Money encounter certain issues in procedural aspects such as case filing, jurisdiction, and handling of the property involved, as well as substantive aspects such as the composition of crimes and determination of charges.

The domestic strong regulatory policies on Virtual Money have led some grassroots judicial organs to tend to regard all activities involving Virtual Money as potential illegal behaviors. Coupled with the fact that there are indeed some high-net-worth individuals in the Virtual Money industry, the combination of these two factors has resulted in judicial organs' crackdown on the Virtual Money industry being no less than that on traditional economic crimes.

However, since March of this year, there are signs that this "deep-sea fishing" style of law enforcement may be easing. It is reported that the relevant authorities have issued new regulations regarding the handling of enterprise-related criminal cases across provinces, imposing stricter restrictions on the jurisdiction of such cases. This move has alleviated the law enforcement pressure faced by the Virtual Money industry to some extent.

In criminal cases related to Virtual Money, common charges include organizing and leading pyramid selling activities, operating a casino, illegal business operations, aiding information network crime activities, concealing or disguising criminal proceeds, among others. Additionally, it also involves traditional crimes such as fraud, theft, and computer-related crimes.

It is worth noting that crimes related to virtual money can mostly be classified as cyber crimes, and the jurisdiction of cyber crimes is extremely broad. This means that even if law enforcement agencies in one area do not file a case, law enforcement agencies in other regions may still intervene. Therefore, although the new regulations set certain obstacles for cross-province law enforcement, the virtual money industry still faces the risk of being "caught in distant waters."

The virtual money industry has been at the forefront of regulation since 2017. In the Web3 space, the debate between virtual money and blockchain technology has never ceased. Even in relatively open financial centers like Singapore, there is a continuous adjustment of Web3 policies, primarily affecting the virtual money sector.

The conflict between virtual money and centralized regulation seems difficult to reconcile. The ideal state may be to find a balance between regulators and decentralization supporters, much like hedgehogs coexisting, maintaining a safe and comfortable distance for coexistence and development.