出售出租银行卡电话卡？当心掉进帮信罪的坑

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security have issued opinions on handling criminal cases related to aiding information network crimes, emphasizing the need for public awareness to avoid falling into the trap of aiding crimes [1][2]. Group 1: Characteristics of Aiding Crimes - Aiding information network crime (referred to as "aiding crime") has been a newly added crime since the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment (Nine) in November 2015 [2]. - The current defendants in aiding crimes exhibit characteristics of being younger, less educated, and lower income, with over 80% of defendants under 35 years old and one-third under 25 years old, particularly involving minors and students [2][3]. - Criminal groups are increasingly recruiting individuals from vulnerable groups, including minors and students, to assist in criminal activities [2]. Group 2: Legal Treatment and Sentencing - The opinions stress a balanced approach to sentencing, advocating for leniency towards minors, students, and those at the end of the criminal chain with lighter circumstances, while ensuring that leniency does not equate to impunity [3][4]. - In a case involving a student who knowingly assisted in criminal activities, the individual received an eight-month prison sentence with a one-year probation, while others involved were either not prosecuted or received conditional non-prosecution [3]. Group 3: Strict Punishment for Serious Offenders - The opinions outline strict penalties for organized, professional, and cross-border aiding crimes, as well as for key figures such as organizers and planners [4][5]. - Specific circumstances warranting severe punishment include providing illegal technical support across borders and using advanced technologies for criminal activities [4]. Group 4: Comprehensive Governance and Prevention - The opinions highlight the increasing difficulty in combating aiding crimes, with a notable rise in cases involving "two cards" (bank cards and phone cards) and a trend towards professionalization and cross-border operations [5][6]. - The recognition of whether an individual "knew" about the criminal activities and whether the circumstances were "serious" is crucial for determining guilt in aiding crimes [6][7]. - The opinions emphasize the need for a comprehensive governance strategy, addressing both the symptoms and root causes of aiding crimes, and implementing systemic measures to prevent future occurrences [8][9].