< ... According to the relevant judicial interpretation, in our country, if the amount of gambling and profiteering by organizing more than three people to gamble reaches 5,000 yuan, the amount of gambling funds reaches 50,000 yuan, the number of gamblers reaches 20, or the number of Chinese citizens who organize more than 10 to gamble abroad, and collect kickbacks and referral fees from them, it may constitute a crime.(II) Crime of opening a casino
Opening a casino, as the name suggests, is the act of creating and operating a gambling venue; you can open a "physical store", and now more "opening an online store". According to the provisions of the judicial interpretation, establishing a gambling website, acting as an agent for a gambling website and accepting bets, all constitute this crime.
The crime of opening a casino has two sentencing levels: less than five years and more than five years. If the amount of profiteering by profiteering in the opened casino reaches 30,000 yuan, the gambling funds reach 300,000 yuan, the number of gamblers reaches more than 120, etc., it will be a circumstance of more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment.
(III) Crime of organizing and participating in foreign gambling
This crime is a new crime added to the 2021 Criminal Law Amendment (XI). Like the crime of opening a casino, there are two sentencing levels; however, there is currently no judicial interpretation specifically for this crime. In 2020, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security did have a regulation: The "Opinions on Several Issues in Handling Cross-border Gambling Crime Cases" identified cross-border gambling crimes. Interested friends can learn about it for themselves.
The above three crimes are referred to as "gambling crimes" in short.
二 Characteristics of Internet Gambling Crimes
Since the rise of the Internet, gambling activities have mainly moved online. Online gambling has completely gotten rid of the traditional method's requirements or dependence on the region. "Gamblers" no longer have to worry about the police raiding the smoky dark room, or trying hard to show their Oscar acting skills in the chess and card room, or hiking to the primeval forest to draw cards.
In addition to having no geographical restrictions, online gambling is also fully free in terms of time, and it is more convenient to deposit and withdraw money. Gamblers are happy, and the dealers are even happier: Online casinos can be controlled at any time, not only in terms of winning or losing results and probabilities, but also in terms of some platforms directly restricting gamblers from withdrawing cash or money with reasons such as "hacker attacks", "system failures" and "abnormal funds", directly sublimating their suspected crimes of opening casinos into fraud. Gamblers are always the ones who get hurt here - they lose every time they gamble.
In view of the prevalence of online gambling, in 2010, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Online Gambling Crimes" (hereinafter referred to as the "2010 Opinions"), which stipulates the standards for conviction and sentencing of online gambling.
Three Rules for Judging Virtual Currency Gambling Cases
(I) Special Rules for Online Gambling Cases Involving Virtual Currency
With the help of the anonymity, decentralization, and transnationality of virtual currencies, online gambling cases have increasingly relied on virtual currencies in recent years. In particular, the use of new virtual currencies represented by USDT as gambling funds has almost become an "industry practice". In handling such cases, there are two important practical issues: First, how should gambling funds be identified? Second, how to identify gambling participants in anonymized electronic evidence? 1. Determination of gambling fundsAccording to the 2010 Opinions, "For those who directly or indirectly convert funds into virtual items such as virtual currency, game props, etc., and use them as chips for betting, the amount of gambling funds shall be determined according to the amount of funds required to purchase the virtual items or the amount of funds actually paid (gambling funds)". Please note that this is the regulation in 2010. There was no USDT Tether at that time. Even if there was Bitcoin, not many people directly use Bitcoin to participate in gambling until now. So the "virtual currency" in the 2010 Opinions refers to the tools such as digital props and points provided by gambling websites in a centralized manner, not the virtual currency issued by blockchain technology today. So how to determine the amount of gambling when virtual currencies represented by USDT, or virtual currencies issued by gambling websites using blockchain technology (such as virtual currencies issued on public chains without any consensus) are used as gambling funds? The judicial interpretation stipulates that the amount of funds required to purchase the virtual item or the amount of funds actually paid shall be used for identification, but this may not be feasible in current practice: According to the provisions of the "9.24 Notice", virtual currency in China is not legally enforceable and cannot be circulated or used as currency; my country also prohibits any entity from providing pricing services for virtual currency transactions. Based on the anonymity of virtual currency itself, the following issues will be involved in online gambling cases:It is difficult to prove the purchase amount in online gambling cases involving virtual currency. Virtual currency fluctuates unpredictably. Even if the so-called stable currency USDT, USDC, etc. cannot be used to purchase the suspect with RMB, if the investigating agency cannot prove how much RMB the suspect used to purchase it, it is not possible to determine the gambling funds involved in the case by reverse calculation based on the value of the virtual currency in RMB, because in reality, there are gamblers who obtain virtual currency for free through "airdrops" and other methods and then participate in gambling activities. This kind of virtual currency obtained at zero cost should not be identified as gambling funds. 2. Identification of gamblers
Regarding the identification of gamblers, the identification method in the 2010 Opinions is: "The number of member accounts on gambling websites can be identified as the number of gamblers. If it is verified that an account is used by multiple people or multiple accounts are used by one person, the number of gamblers should be calculated according to the actual number of users." To sum up, it is the principle of seeking truth from facts, and the number of people should be identified as the actual number of people. In virtual currency gambling cases, since virtual currency wallets (similar to the aforementioned “gambling website membership accounts”) are anonymous and a person can theoretically register an unlimited number of virtual currency wallets, the investigating authorities cannot simply use the number of virtual currency wallet addresses involved in the case as the number of gamblers for a rough and simplistic determination (in practice, some investigating authorities do this!). According to Lawyer Zheng Yao, the investigating authorities must at least prove that a certain wallet address is really being used by Zhang San or Li Si. (II) Development trend of virtual currency gambling crimes
According to the data I collected, the number of judgments on gambling crimes totaled 59,892, as follows:(Disclosure of judgments on gambling crimes, source alpha)It should be noted here that since 2020, the number of judgments disclosed by courts across the country has begun to decrease significantly. Now some courts even take non-disclosure of judgments as a principle and disclosure as an exception. Judicial transparency has clearly regressed. There are a total of 117 judgments involving virtual currency gambling crimes, see the figure below: (Public disclosure of judgments involving virtual currency gambling crimes, source alpha) (III) Data on the crime of opening a casino involving virtual currency
There are currently a total of 195,079 judgments on the crime of opening a casino, of which 828 involve virtual currency, see the figure below: (The public disclosure of judgment documents on the crime of opening a casino, source alpha)(The public disclosure of judgment documents on the crime of opening a casino involving virtual currency, source alpha) 24px;">Written at the end
Whether it is the crime of gambling or the crime of opening a casino, or the crime of organizing and participating in a foreign casino, the purpose of the state's crackdown on these behaviors is to maintain a stable social order, because in addition to the harmfulness of gambling behavior itself, it is also very easy to breed "secondary crimes", such as gamblers stealing, robbing or even killing for gambling money.
However, lawyers believe that the identification standards for gambling crimes (such as the 2005 "Explanation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Gambling" and the 2010 "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Internet Gambling") are seriously lagging behind the current social development. It is very inappropriate to use the crime amount stipulated 15 or even 20 years ago to identify the current gambling crime - God knows how many times the inflation has reached. The judicial organs should comprehensively determine the punishment that the suspect/defendant should receive according to the actual situation of the current social development, rather than just the amount involved.
In virtual currency gambling cases, not only is there the problem that the above-mentioned applicable judicial interpretations lag far behind the development of today's society, but also because of the special nature of virtual currency itself, the evidence collection standards and evidence proof standards of the case-handling agencies are more or less inconsistent with the current Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, and relevant judicial interpretations, and there are even serious conflicts, which are mainly reflected in the identification of gambling funds and gamblers involved in the case. This should also attract the attention of the case-handling agencies. They must keep up with the times and learn professional knowledge of blockchain and virtual currency in order to handle virtual currency-related online gambling cases well, rather than blindly maintaining their strong position and turning a deaf ear to the reasonable opinions of the defense lawyers.