A detailed explanation of the new judicial interpretation on concealing crimes from a defense perspective: What are the changes?

Author: Liu Yang

2025August25The Supreme People's Court held a press conference and announced the “Two Highs” The article also presented the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Concealment and Hiding of Criminal Proceeds and Proceeds of Criminal Proceeds," along with typical cases of legally punishing the crimes of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds and proceeds of criminal proceeds, and answered reporters' questions. As a lawyer, I'm more interested in the favorable provisions of the new judicial interpretation on the crime of concealment that will benefit defense work and provide clients with better defense results. Therefore, this article's interpretation will primarily be from a defense perspective. First, let me mention an interesting phenomenon: the previous judicial interpretation on the crime of concealment was arguably "relatively short-lived." The implementation time of the previous judicial interpretation was 2021425, which is only 4 years away from this revision, and as early as 20233. On the 24th of the 1881st month, it was reviewed and approved at the 1881st meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court. That is to say, only two years later, the amendment of the law was put on the agenda.

As for the crime of money laundering, which is of the same origin, the last judicial interpretation was issued in 2009.

This frequency of legislative amendments is not common among other crimes. For example, the judicial interpretation of insider trading was issued in 2012, thirteen years ago. During this period, the prosecution standards were revised in 2022, but a new judicial interpretation has not yet been issued.

This fully demonstrates that the crime of concealment involves a large number of cases in practice, and the means and types of crimes change rapidly. The original judicial interpretations are not uniform in their grasp in specific practice, resulting in uneven sentencing. It is urgent to introduce new judicial interpretations to guide judicial practice.

The content of the first article is not important for the defense. It seems that the first article of every judicial interpretation has no meaning for the defense. The previous judicial interpretation was rather wordy, and the new judicial interpretation made a general statement. As long as it can serve to cover up or conceal something, it is not allowed, no matter what your behavior is or whether the funds are cross-border. (Regarding “other methods”, they are stipulated in Article 10 of the previous judicial interpretation) Article 2 is extremely important. Regarding how to judge “knowingly”, there is no clear provision in the previous judicial interpretation, but in other relevant laws and judicial interpretations, there are rules on “presumed knowing”. “Knowingly” also includes “should have known”. Therefore, in practice, the presumed knowing is abused. As long as you did something, you knew it. If you admit it, I will give you a lighter sentence. If you don’t admit it, then it is presumed that you knew it, which is the focus of the sentence. (I am not making this up) The original description of this phenomenon at the press conference was: “In response to the situation in practice where this subjective element has not been accurately grasped and there has been an exaggeration in the identification, the Interpretation modifies and improves the rules for examining and judging knowledge, emphasizing that knowledge must be determined strictly in accordance with the law and that presumptions must be used with caution.” To translate the key words, that is, inaccurate grasp, exaggeration, and careless use.

Looking at the numbers again, which were also announced at this press conference, from 2020 to 2024, the procuratorate prosecuted 23.02 million cases of the crime of concealing and hiding the proceeds of crime, and the people's courts concluded 22.09 million cases of first instance. According to Article 2 of the new judicial interpretation, (1) we must consider the information you, as the perpetrator, received and accessed, and the circumstances surrounding the criminal proceeds and their profits. Were you aware of the crime committed? Did you hear? See? Think of it? Did the proceeds of others increase abnormally? Therefore, in our defense, the most important question is, "Why didn't they?" (2) We must consider the type and amount of the criminal proceeds and their profits. For example, if someone suddenly asks you to help sell five electric bicycles, any normal person would find the number unusual and a bit strange. (3) It is necessary to consider the transfer and conversion methods of the proceeds of crime and their profits, the transaction behaviors, and the abnormal situations of the financial accounts. A typical example is that someone gives you money to buy gold, or asks you to buy virtual currency, and some also require you to put the money or gold in a designated place. You have never met the person you are trading with, or the two parties communicate through encrypted communication tools, or your bank card is frozen after the transaction with him, which is abnormal, but you still continue to trade with him. (4) Consider the perpetrator's professional experience and their relationship with the upstream criminal. Professional experience encompasses a wide range of topics, including academic qualifications, college studies, even whether you've taken law courses, your job, and the field in which you work. If you're in finance, then claiming ignorance of the upstream criminal's methods and unusual funding is clearly ineffective. In a cover-up defense, having no connection to the upstream criminal is less important than having no connection. For example, if the upstream criminal is a close relative, this is certainly advantageous for the defense, and judicial interpretations also provide for separate exoneration. However, if you didn't know the upstream criminal before and had never worked together, and they suddenly offered you money, a large sum of money, and told you to make money, that doesn't make sense. In practice, the most effective defense against "knowingly" is to prove one's own lack of knowledge. A large number of individuals suspected of concealing funds were deceived. A typical example is when a person sought a loan but was told they needed to swipe their bank account due to credit issues. Some individuals then mailed a three-piece set, while others were tricked into giving their credit cards to a hotel. In these cases, it's crucial to analyze whether the upstream offender's deceptive behavior can negate the determination of "knowingly." Article 3 is rather general, but it actually contains a crucial message: the determination of the amount of the concealment crime is no longer solely based on the amount. Although the previous judicial interpretation didn't explicitly stipulate a monetary amount for conviction, in practice, local authorities have their own standards for conviction, based on whether the amount is sufficient. Of course, the previous judicial interpretation also specified four circumstances: those involving individuals who have been subject to administrative penalties and then committed the offense again; those involving specific facilities, equipment, or property; those that prevent the investigation and prosecution of upstream crimes, resulting in losses; and those that obstruct the prosecution of upstream crimes. The new judicial interpretation has deleted these elements, emphasizing a comprehensive consideration of the nature and social harm of the upstream crime, the circumstances and consequences of concealing or concealing criminal proceeds and their benefits, and the degree of obstruction to judicial order. While it appears that there are no monetary amounts for conviction, it's unclear whether local authorities will continue to enforce specific standards and solely rely on monetary amounts for conviction. However, I have observed that, following the release of the new judicial interpretation, some suspects have indeed been released and their cases have been dropped. Article 4 discusses circumstances in which prosecution may be waived or criminal punishment may be exempted, focusing on "playing a significant role in cooperating with judicial authorities in investigating upstream crimes." Defense lawyers have considerable room to maneuver regarding this point. Some suspects, after compulsory measures are taken, are confused and unable to promptly and effectively provide relevant clues for solving upstream crimes. Lawyers are required to review files and sort out clues through interviews and by reviewing case files, and then submit them to judicial authorities. This will also be an important defense tool for concealing crimes and obtaining non-prosecution. Finally, we come to the fifth point, which is the soul of the new judicial interpretation, or "error correction," and it must be revised. Article 5 stipulates what constitutes "serious circumstances," that is, what circumstances warrant a sentence of more than three years. Looking at the amount of the crime, if the upstream crime involves a relatively high standard for conviction and sentencing, then the amount involved is concealment of 5 million yuan or loss of 2.5 million yuan. If the upstream crime involves a relatively low standard for conviction and sentencing, then the amount involved is concealment of 500,000 yuan or loss of 250,000 yuan. This is a pioneering approach to legal writing in my country. For the first time, it stipulates that determining whether a crime is serious requires considering whether the upstream crime is "a crime with relatively high standards for conviction and sentencing." Thumbs up. As an aside, I believe similar drafting styles will appear frequently in future laws and judicial interpretations, echoing the basic characteristics of the new judicial interpretations mentioned by officials at the press conference: focusing on integrating international rules with China's realities, and adhering to the principle of seeking truth from facts while keeping pace with the times. Why did I say the previous judicial interpretation "had to be changed"? Regarding this article, the previous judicial interpretation stipulated that "concealing or concealing the proceeds of crime and the resulting profits totaling more than 100,000 yuan" and "concealing or concealing the proceeds of crime and the resulting profits more than ten times, or more than three times with a total value of more than 50,000 yuan." Note that this refers to the amount concealed, not the amount of profit. The new judicial interpretation has increased the amount by five to fifty times! This provision in the previous judicial interpretation has caused all legal practitioners to "collapse." Not only lawyers were devastated, but judicial personnel also found it difficult to apply.

Let me give you an example. The upstream criminal was stealing

This is why the new judicial interpretation particularly emphasizes in its concise provisions:

When determining“that the circumstances are serious”, attention should be paid to maintaining a sentencing balance with the upstream crime. In applying the previous judicial interpretation, inconsistent approaches were adopted across different regions, leading to different verdicts and uneven sentencing for the same case. Some regions simply applied the interpretation mechanically, regardless of whether it was balanced. Others considered the entire case comprehensively, for example, designating both the upstream and downstream parties as joint offenders and the downstream party as an accomplice. This ensured that the downstream party's crime and punishment were commensurate, resulting in a lighter sentence than the upstream party. Recently, I've seen numerous articles discussing the new judicial interpretation as "concerning virtual currency," yet the entire interpretation makes no mention of virtual currency. I believe Article 6 is particularly relevant to virtual currency. Article 6 stipulates that the amount to be determined shall be based on the time at which the concealment or concealment occurred. If the price of property purchased or sold on behalf of another party is higher than its actual value, the purchase or sale price shall be used for calculation. Because the value of virtual digital currencies fluctuates significantly, determining the amount of the crime is particularly crucial in cases involving virtual currency concealment. Here's a scenario: For example, if you receive Bitcoin worth $100,000 and sell it for $120,000, then the amount of the crime is $120,000. However, if the Bitcoin was worth $120,000 when you received it from the upstream supplier, and by the time you wanted to sell it, it had dropped to $100,000, then, sorry, the amount of the crime would still be $120,000. No one can profit from illegal activities, but they can suffer losses from them. Articles 7 through 11 don't require much analysis; they simply mean what they say, and everyone understands.

On the day of the press conference, the official website of the Supreme People's Procuratorate published an interpretation article entitled "Precision Strikes + International Integration, the "Two Highs" New Regulations Demarcate the Crime of Concealing and Hiding Criminal Proceeds and Proceeds from Criminal Proceeds", which mentioned that the new regulations are aimed at new situations and new problems in the crime of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds, promoting the improvement of the regulatory system for money laundering crimes, breaking the "amount-only theory", avoiding mechanical justice, and adopting a "serious circumstances" dual limitation model of "amount + circumstances". Indeed, the new judicial interpretation is clearly more practical and operational. At the same time, its relevant provisions are consistent with the judicial interpretation on money laundering, avoiding the situation where a special law is too special. If there is a shortcoming, it is somewhat regrettable that the new judicial interpretation does not stipulate a fine like the judicial interpretation on money laundering. (The author is a senior partner at Beijing Deheng Law Firm and deputy secretary-general of the National Criminal Law Commission)