Distinction Between the Crime of Facilitating Cybercrime Through Payment/Settlement Activities and the Crime of Concealing Criminal Proceeds

Abstract

In recent years, the crime of assisting information network criminal activities has shown an increasingly evident trend of becoming a "catch-all offense". The objective acts of the crime of assisting cybercrime through payment/settlement activities and the crime of concealing criminal proceeds bear significant similarities, and the unclear boundary between them has been a key factor contributing to the rapid judicial expansion of the former. Therefore, it is necessary to establish clear criteria to distinguish these two offenses. Although the crime of assisting cybercrime is stipulated as an independent offense, its substantive nature remains that of an accomplice (accessory), and its assistingcharacter has not changed. According to the causative theory of complicity, thecrime of assisting cybercrime can only be established before the consummation of the upstream crime. In contrast, the crime of concealing criminal proceeds can be established after the consummation of the upstream crime, or even when the criminal conduct has been completed but the crime has not yet been consummated. For the overlapping stage where both offenses could potentially apply, a concrete examination should be conducted regarding the legal interest infringed upon by the actor, combined with the actor's subjective knowledge at the time of the act, to determine the specific offense under the guidance of the principle of consistency between subjective and objective elements.