一审法院以非法经营罪判处被告人朱某有期徒刑七年，并处罚金八万元。宣判后朱某不服，以不应定非 法经营罪及原判量刑过重为由向海南自由贸易港知识产权法院提起上诉。 海南自由贸易港知识产权法院经审理另查明：朱某持有广东汕头龙湖区烟草专卖局颁发的烟草专卖零售 许可证，案发时许可证在有效期限内。查获在案的4287.4条真品卷烟均为专供出口卷烟或无标志外国卷 烟。 海南自由贸易港知识产权法院认为，上诉人朱某持有广东汕头龙湖区烟草专卖局颁发的烟草专卖零售许 可证，其超出许可范围和供货单位购入走私卷烟跨区域批发、零售的行为，不符合"无证经营"的规定， 不应按非法经营罪处理。我国对卷烟实行专卖制度，禁止单位或者个人走私卷烟或非法收购、运输、邮 寄、贩卖、窝藏走私卷烟。本案中，在案证据能够证明朱某明知购进的卷烟为走私卷烟或假冒伪劣卷 烟，仍通过非法渠道进行收购并销售，其中已销售的卷烟购进价格为3684851元，尚未销售的卷烟购进 价格为725896元，掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得数额共计达400余万元，情节严重，其行为已构成掩饰、隐瞒犯 罪所得罪。海南自由贸易港知识产权法院作出二审判决，改判被告人朱某犯掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪，判 处有期徒刑五 ...

"动动手指就能赚钱！" "帮忙取个钱就有好处费！" "这样的好事可是天上掉馅饼，确定不尝试一下吗？"在日常生活中，你是否抵挡得住这样的"诱惑"？但 是，你可不要以为这只是一个简简单单的"小忙"而已。这不，隔壁村的王一（化名）因贪图利益，看到 网上"跑分"赚钱的信息，十分心动，想着不过是帮忙转转账、取取钱，既轻松又来钱快，结果一头栽进 了违法犯罪的深渊…… 实际上，王一所谓的"跑分"就是帮助上线将网络赌博、电信诈骗等资金领取并转移。为了赚取所谓 的"跑分"佣金，王一与"上线"取得联系，开始按照指示操作。 他首先联系小A、小B、小C将三人的银行卡号码提供给上线用以转移网络赌博、电信诈骗的违法所 得，上述三人就成了他们口中的"卡农"。等"卡农"银行卡收到违法资金后，王一再将"卡农"们带往银行 取现，并将钱收集齐交给其上线。 王一不仅自己贪图利益参与其中，还在取现的时候联系李二（化名）帮忙开车，顺便看守"卡农"，防 止"卡农"带钱跑路。而李二明知王一等人所取的现金系违法犯罪资金的情况下，仍开车带人去银行取 现，方便王一将钱转给上线。 一次两次，三次四次，王一和李二明知是犯罪所得而予以转移，其行为均已触犯《中华人民共和 ...

（来源：法治日报） □ 本报记者 邢东伟 翟小功 "帮忙拉人进群就有钱拿""借用一下银行卡而已，没事的"……看似简单的"高 薪工作"，其实是诈骗团伙精心设计的陷阱。近日，海南省洋浦经济开发区人民法院开庭审理一起掩 饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪案件并当庭宣判。 法院查明，2025年6月，被告人钱某在被拉入名为"精准扶贫专 项资金对接打款"的聊天群后，在该群中结识了周某。聊天期间，周某让其提供银行卡供转账使用，并 承诺钱某每拉一人进群并提供银行卡就可获得红包2000元。 钱某有犯罪前科，其银行卡无法使用，可 仍想赚取2000元钱。她与王某聊天过程中，向其介绍了在网上注册领取扶贫资金一事，王某按照钱某的 操作，用手机下载软件并加入群聊，按照指示在群内签到。一段时间后，周某联系王某，称只要提供银 行卡协助转账事宜，就给一定"好处费"，王某答应了。 2025年8月，被害人杨某受某网友"知道交易内 幕，购买黄金期货赚钱"的宣传引诱，在其推荐的网站上购买了10万元的黄金期货，后发现钱无法取 出。原来，该网站并非真实的官方网站。这笔诈骗款辗转进入了王某的银行账户中，随后钱某监督王某 将10万元赃款取出，并存入周某的指定银行账户中。 被 ...

Core Points - The case involves a defendant, Ke, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for concealing and disguising criminal proceeds related to a fraud case, with the sentence combined to a total of 2 years due to prior probation violations [1] - The investigation revealed that Ke exchanged cash for U-Currency (a virtual currency pegged to the US dollar) in a suspicious manner, indicating knowledge of the illicit nature of the funds [2] - Key evidence included a video showing large stacks of cash, which was linked to the victim's bank withdrawal records, confirming the source of the funds as fraudulent [2][3] Group 1 - Ke was found guilty of concealing criminal proceeds and was sentenced to 2 years in prison after a previous probation was revoked [1] - The investigation utilized video evidence to trace the cash back to the victim, establishing a direct link to the fraudulent activity [2] - The choice of location and timing for the cash exchange raised suspicions about Ke's awareness of the criminal nature of the funds [2] Group 2 - The court accepted the prosecution's evidence and sentencing recommendations, leading to a conviction that was upheld [3] - Ke initially denied involvement but ultimately confessed in court after the evidence was presented [3]

Group 1 - A recent case in Beijing highlights the legal consequences of using virtual currencies to conceal and transfer criminal proceeds, with a defendant sentenced to three and a half years in prison for assisting in the transfer of 200,000 RMB in fraudulently obtained funds [1] - The court found that the defendant, Liu, knowingly sold USDT to an individual aware that the cash involved was criminal proceeds, which led to the conviction for the crime of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds [1] - The ruling emphasized that the total value of concealed criminal proceeds exceeding 100,000 RMB qualifies as "serious circumstances," resulting in Liu's sentence and a fine of 40,000 RMB [1] Group 2 - Judges noted that such crimes are characterized by a profit-driven mentality and a false sense of security, as criminals often underestimate the legal repercussions of their actions [2] - The judiciary warns the public to be cautious of unusual virtual currency transactions that deviate from market prices, involve rapid large transactions, or employ covert operations, as these may indicate illicit activities [2] - Individuals knowingly assisting in the conversion or transfer of criminal proceeds may face severe criminal penalties under Chinese law, specifically Article 312 of the Criminal Law [2]

Group 1 - The case highlights the risks associated with large transactions in the gold industry, particularly regarding money laundering and the concealment of criminal proceeds [1][6] - The jewelry store owner, despite being warned about suspicious customer behavior, continued to facilitate transactions, ultimately leading to legal consequences [2][4] - The case serves as a warning to other businesses in the gold sector to adhere to anti-money laundering regulations and to be vigilant in identifying potentially illicit transactions [4][6] Group 2 - The legal framework under which the store owner was prosecuted emphasizes the seriousness of knowingly facilitating transactions involving criminal proceeds [6] - The increasing trend of criminals using gold purchases to launder money underscores the need for stricter compliance measures within the industry [6] - The case illustrates the importance of understanding legal obligations and the potential repercussions of neglecting due diligence in financial transactions [6]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have released typical cases to clarify the legal issues surrounding the concealment and disguise of criminal proceeds, particularly in the context of virtual currencies and large gold transactions [1][2] Group 1: Criminal Methods - Criminals are increasingly using virtual currencies and large gold transactions to conceal the origins and nature of illicit funds, leveraging blockchain technology and virtual spaces for rapid fund transfers [1] - In a specific case, defendants used a network trading platform to convert criminal proceeds into virtual currency, facilitating quick transfers to evade law enforcement [1] - The use of large gold transactions for concealing criminal proceeds has become a common method across various regions, as demonstrated in a case where a defendant knowingly assisted in such transactions [1] Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Judgments - In a case involving the purchase of stolen steel plates, the defendant was sentenced to six years in prison for knowingly acquiring goods of unknown origin at significantly below market value, resulting in illegal profits exceeding 6 million yuan [2] - The distinction between aiding information network crimes and the concealment of criminal proceeds has posed challenges in judicial proceedings, necessitating careful consideration of the defendant's knowledge and actions [2] - The release of these typical cases aims to enhance the effectiveness of handling criminal cases related to the concealment of criminal proceeds, ensuring proper application of the law [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly released an interpretation regarding the handling of criminal cases related to concealing and disguising criminal proceeds, effective from August 26, 2025, aiming to clarify judicial rules and unify legal application [1]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Context - The crime of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds is the most prevalent type of money laundering crime, closely linked to telecom fraud and online gambling [1]. - From 2020 to 2024, prosecutors initiated 230,200 cases of this crime, while courts concluded 220,900 first-instance cases, effectively deterring upstream crimes such as telecom fraud and online gambling [1]. Group 2: New Challenges and Legal Adaptations - The evolving nature of crime, including more sophisticated methods and the shift from theft to fraud, particularly telecom fraud, presents new challenges for legal application [2]. - The interpretation clarifies that any actions that conceal or disguise criminal proceeds, such as transferring funds or converting assets, fall under the scope of the law [2]. Group 3: Standards for Criminal Liability - The interpretation emphasizes strict adherence to the requirement of "knowing the proceeds are criminal" and modifies the standards for determining this knowledge to prevent overreach in criminal prosecution [3]. - A comprehensive assessment of social harm will be used to determine criminal liability, considering factors such as the relationship to upstream crimes, subjective malice, methods used, amounts involved, and consequences [3]. Group 4: Penalty Guidelines - The interpretation introduces differentiated standards for severe cases based on the type of upstream crime, setting thresholds of 5 million and 500,000 yuan for aggravated penalties [3]. - It also includes provisions for leniency in sentencing for individuals who significantly assist in tracing upstream crimes, encouraging cooperation in recovering losses [4].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly released an interpretation regarding the handling of criminal cases related to concealing and disguising criminal proceeds, effective from August 26, 2025, aiming to clarify judicial rules and unify legal application [1]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Context - The crime of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds is the most prevalent type of money laundering crime, closely linked to telecom fraud and online gambling [1]. - From 2020 to 2024, prosecutors initiated 230,200 cases of this crime, while courts concluded 220,900 first-instance cases, effectively deterring upstream crimes such as telecom fraud and online gambling [1]. Group 2: New Challenges and Legal Adaptations - The evolving nature of crime, including more sophisticated methods and organized structures, has led to new challenges in applying the law regarding concealing and disguising criminal proceeds [2]. - The interpretation clarifies that the methods of crime include various actions that can conceal or disguise criminal proceeds, such as intermediary transactions, holding, using, and transferring funds [2]. Group 3: Subjective Elements and Judgement Standards - The interpretation emphasizes strict legal recognition of the subjective element of "knowing it is criminal proceeds," aiming to prevent the over-expansion of criminal liability [3]. - A comprehensive assessment standard is maintained for determining criminal liability, considering factors such as the relationship with upstream crimes, subjective malice, methods used, amount involved, and consequences [3]. Group 4: Penalty Standards and Mitigating Circumstances - The interpretation optimizes the standards for determining "serious circumstances" for increased penalties, setting thresholds of 5 million and 500,000 yuan based on the type of upstream crime [3]. - It introduces mitigating circumstances for those who significantly assist in tracing upstream crimes, encouraging cooperation in recovering losses for the public [4].

Core Insights - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have released typical cases to clarify the legal issues surrounding the concealment and disguise of criminal proceeds, particularly in the context of virtual currencies and large gold transactions [1][2] Group 1: Criminal Methods - Criminals are increasingly using blockchain technology and virtual currencies to obscure the origins and nature of illicit funds, facilitating rapid fund transfers and evasion of law enforcement [1] - The use of large gold transactions for concealing criminal proceeds has become a common method across various regions, as evidenced by cases where individuals knowingly participated in such transactions [1] Group 2: Legal Cases and Judgments - In the case of "An Certain et al.," defendants used a network trading platform to convert criminal proceeds into virtual currency, leading to convictions for the crime of concealing criminal proceeds, with severe penalties imposed [1] - In the case of "Chen Certain," the defendant knowingly purchased stolen steel plates at significantly undervalued prices, resulting in illegal profits exceeding 6 million yuan, and was sentenced to six years in prison [2] Group 3: Judicial Clarifications - The distinction between aiding information network criminal activities and concealing criminal proceeds has been a significant challenge in judicial proceedings, prompting the need for clear legal definitions and applications [2] - The release of these typical cases aims to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of handling criminal cases related to the concealment of criminal proceeds, thereby reinforcing the role of criminal justice in punishing crime and protecting the public [2]