我拿到了中币系国内首个《受案回执》却只能目睹ZB成为法外狂徒
【引言】
讲个故事，在中币正式暴雷前一周，我们就报案并第一时间拿到了刑事《受案回执》，然并卵！ZB仍然成为了“法外狂徒”！不论币圈有多乱，受伤的永远都是“韭菜”。一方面一堆没有暴雷的币圈交易所被立案调查，导致韭菜血本无归。另一方面ZB交易所割了韭菜上百亿，但案子到现在为止都立不了案，韭菜们甚至都已经跑到花老板的老家“送花圈、挖祖坟”去了，也仍然无法立案。郭律师作为ZB没暴雷之前就报案的，又在暴雷后仅两周就在国内第一个拿到ZB案《受案回执》的律师，今天给大家爆料一下中币暴雷案的一些细思极恐的事实，分析一下ZB为什么会成为“法外狂徒”。
一、案件办理始末（从“受理案件”到“没有犯罪事实”）
2022年8月2日，ZB交易所突然发布公告称遭遇故障，停止充提币服务，币圈韭菜一片哗然。然而，大家不知道的是，在2022年的7月初，郭律师就已经收到了和ZB同一个老板旗下的币圈理财项目“bitbank”无法提币案件的委托，涉及的金额换算成人民币价值八位数。当时郭律师还是信心满满的，毕竟就算bitbank无法提币，只要ZB交易所还在，那币就在，而只要币在，就好说了。然而现实啪啪打脸，刚进行了第一步，ZB就倒闭了，这个案件也成为了郭律师代理币圈退款类案件为数不多的失败案例！
此后经过国内办公地踩点（已经跑路了）、链上数据（币已经转走了）、聊天记录、网站信息公证（这点很重要，即使现在服务器已经关了，我们手中也有当时的证据）等证据的收集和整理，以及报案材料等法律文书的准备。2022年7月27日，郭律师陪同当事人向深圳市公安局南山分局提起了刑事控告，涉及的罪名包含了诈骗罪、集资诈骗罪、非法经营罪、非法吸收公众存款罪、非法利用信息网络罪。涉案事实既包括了对bitbank项目负责人的刑事控告，也包括了对ZB交易所的刑事报案（分不清举报、控告、报案的问度娘），至于为什么要报这么多罪名，且看后半部分的分享。
接下来就可以划第一个重点了：一开始报完案后，办案机关并未按照法律规定，向我们出具《受案回执》。直到进行了一番投诉和深入沟通后，才于8月19日收到了《受案回执》。
当然，即使是8月19日，郭律师也成为了国内第一个成功拿到ZB案件受案结果的律师。有意思的是，这个时间点，很多韭菜还在幻想ZB能够起死回生，反对别人去报案。毕竟人家ZB的公告只是“技术故障”，也不是官宣跑路嘛。
然而，好景不长。经过办案机关2个多月的不懈努力，包括但不限于传唤币圈老干部李老板等几个和ZB有关的人之后。竟然开出了一份《不予立案通知书》，并注明了原因是“没有犯罪事实”，What？没有犯罪事实？且不说bitbank这个不为大多数人所知的项目，单ZB的事实，问下度娘都能查到一堆涉案行为吧。于是郭律师又向办案单位以及上级办案单位提出了刑事立案的复议和复核，结论依旧是“没有犯罪事实”，最后又向南山区检察院申请了立案监督，结果依旧。
那么这么多的办案单位，“没有犯罪事实”的结论是否正确？且听郭律师细细分析。
二、法律分析（法律缺位“趋利执法”无可奈何）
首先，郭律师先把结论给出来：不论是ZB案件的立案与否，还是其他币圈案件的构成犯罪与否，问题的根本都来源于现有法律规定的缺失。
所以，这也是为什么郭律师会在报案时，列了那么多个的罪名（理论上同一法律事实只构成一罪），为的就是尽可能地推动立案成功，毕竟只要涉嫌一个罪名就应当立案，至于具体定什么罪，是公权力机关的事嘛。当然，正常报案，还是建议不要这么随便列罪名。因此，在所有的罪名中，郭律师也有一个“必杀”的兜底罪名，即非法利用信息网络罪。接下来我们就来一一分析，是什么让ZB成为了“法外狂徒”。
（一）为什么办案单位不认为bitbank和ZB构成非法集资类罪名
非法集资类的罪名，通常意义上来讲，就是集资诈骗罪和非法吸收公众存款罪。最主要的特点就是形成了资金池。
而Bitbank事如其名，就是存币生息的一个“比特币银行”，ZB交易所更是兼顾了钱包的作用。并且不论是其发布的QC币还是帮助各种山寨币进行ICO项目，都99%符合非法集资类罪名的特征。然而，那1%的重点恰恰就在于各地司法机关对于“虚拟货币”是否属于非法集资的对象，产生了定性的分歧。
根据《刑法》及其司法解释的相关规定，非吸的对象，只能是资金（即可以用于生产经营或日常生活、合法有效的法定货币或有价证券等）。因此，虚拟货币是否属于资金，就是目前司法实务界产生严重分歧的地方。
站在辩护人的角度，当然会主张虚拟货币不属于“资金”，而站在控方的角度，当然会主张虚拟货币属于“资金”。但站在公安机关是否立案这件事上而言，就是一个特别“微妙”的角度了。如果公安机关“想”立案，就会认为属于资金，反之亦然。于是就出现了同样是币圈理财钱包类的案件和虚拟货币交易所类的案件，有的地方就以集资诈骗或非法吸收公众存款罪定罪量刑了（同类案件判决书可在郭律师过往内容中找找），有的则像ZB这个案子一样。
（二）为什么办案单位不认为bitbank和ZB构成诈骗罪
诈骗罪在刑法的罪名划分上属于财产类犯罪，和盗窃罪、侵占罪等罪名一样，都需要依靠“财产价值评估”来作为定罪量刑的依据。
然而，在《关于防范比特币风险的通知》《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》等一众部委的“政策性文件”的“规定”多次强调虚拟货币不属于法定货币且禁止相关经营活动的背景下，以及最高法第199号指导案例，《中国检察》《中国审判》等实务界司法学术观点的“论证”下，虚拟货币是否具有价值，是否可以进行“价格认定”，就存在了极大的争议。
简单来说，如果办案单位不想立案，就能以虚拟货币无法进行价格认定为由不予立案，反之就能以虚拟货币可以进行价格认定进行立案侦查。说来也好笑，以USDT为代表的虚拟货币都快成为一些行业的优先级结算工具了（如外贸、黄金等行业），司法实务界竟然还否认他的价格。严重地不尊重现实。这点以后再说，今天不浪费篇幅了。
（三）为什么办案单位不认为bitbank和ZB构成非法经营罪
不论是《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》，还是《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》，都明令禁止开设虚拟货币交易所，禁止为代币或虚拟货币提供定价、信息中介等服务。并且bitbank项目中还有挖矿的项目，而挖矿又在2021年就被认定为淘汰类产业。是不是很多人就会理所当然地认为构成非法经营罪？
然而，行政处罚的非法经营，和刑事犯罪的非法经营罪，最大的根本性区别就在于是否被法律或司法解释明确规定，或是否属于国家规定禁止经营的范围。很可惜，不论是《九四公告》还是《九二四通知》，其级别都仅仅属于政策性文件，而不是法律规定。这一点倒是在绝大多数地区都没有什么争议。
那为什么郭律师还要把非法经营罪列进去呢？因为之前郭律师有过同类型的成功立案的案例啊，而且也是在深圳，作为被害人的代理人为什么不试一试呢？在合法的范围内尽可能地抓住一切机会保障当事人的合法权益，这是作为代理律师的职责。难道你希望你的律师天天站在对方的角度替对方说话吗？
（四）为什么办案单位不认为bitbank和ZB构成非法利用信息网络罪
请划第二个重点：说实话，为什么办案单位不认为bitbank和ZB构成非法利用信息网络罪，郭律师到现在也没有想明白。多次询问办案单位，也均未正面回答。在此，如果办案单位能够看到这篇文章，也烦请能够回复一下。
根据《刑法》第二百八十七条之一的规定：“利用信息网络实施下列行为之一，情节严重的，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或者单处罚金：(一)设立用于实施诈骗、传授犯罪方法、制作或者销售违禁物品、管制物品等违法犯罪活动的网站、通讯群组的; (二)发布有关制作或者销售毒品、枪支、淫秽物品等违禁物品、管制物品或者其他违法犯罪信息的; (三)为实施诈骗等违法犯罪活动发布信息的。单位犯前款罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，依照第一款的规定处罚。有前两款行为，同时构成其他犯罪的，依照处罚较重的规定定罪处罚。”同时根据《关于办理非法利用信息网络、帮助信息网络犯罪活动等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第七条的规定：“刑法第二百八十七条之一规定的‘违法犯罪’，包括犯罪行为和属于刑法分则规定的行为类型但尚未构成犯罪的违法行为。”
不论是bitbank官网，还是ZB官网及app页面中，都有大量宣传虚拟货币ICO、理财或挖矿等相关的违法项目，这里面已经有不少的山寨币、土狗币，已经被各地法院定罪量刑。理论上来讲，非法利用信息网络罪是怎么都逃不过的。但，经过各级办案机关的复议、复核、立案监督之后，仍然认为“没有犯罪事实”，又不正面回复具体原因，着实令人费解啊。难道是因为ZB已经“手眼通天”了？再次希望办案单位如果能够看到这篇文章能够回复一下。
三、币圈案件目前存在严重的趋利执法问题
大家都知道，无罪案例在国内的概率是极低的。然而这几年，郭律师却成功进行了大量的币圈刑事案件的无罪辩护。无罪成功的概率更是超过了一半，郭律师自己都感觉很夸张。然而，郭律师却来不及感到自豪，因为郭律师更多看到的是币圈法律的缺失，以及案件的“趋利执法”问题。
通过上面的分析，我们不难看出，除了非法利用信息网络罪和非法经营罪之外。不论是传销类犯罪、非法集资类犯罪，还是财产类犯罪，办案机关在是否立案这个问题上，都存在极大的“自主选择权”。
而这个“自主选择权”可能是基于明面上的承办人基于其知识结构和对现实情况的“自由心证”。也可能是既有非明面上的“地方财政因素”（刑事案件罚没的资产归地方财政处置）“个人关系因素”（有些案件能够明显感受到承办人对报案人的“保护”）“办案压力因素”（少立一个案子就少办一个案子）等。
回归到ZB的案件，为什么截至目前，全国各地仍然没有任何一个地方立案侦查？郭律师想不仅是因为法律方面的缺失吧？难道不可能是因为花老板等ZB钱包地址的实际控制人不在国内？又难道不可能是因为ZB的钱包地址无法进行有效的制约措施？又难道不可能是因为办ZB的案子就要承担国内数十万报案人的办案压力？又或是打心眼儿里就看不起一群炒币的“臭韭菜”们？
最后，郭律师大胆预测一下，如果花老板带着钱包回国了，应该也就是各地办案机关加急ZB立案进度，争夺管辖权的时候了吧。当然，ZB实际办公地的深圳可能也不会加入管辖权的争夺大战，谁让ZB涉及的金额才几百亿呢，和大深圳的财政收入比起来，简直九牛一毛。
四、结语
作为币圈的资深律师，郭律师其实经常能够收到很多关于币圈的一手信息。但作为一名律师，从职业道德的角度出发，这些消息郭律师从来不会公开出来（所以也不用来和我打听什么），发案例也是事后的且匿名处理过的，毕竟当事人找的是律师，而不是媒体。本次之所以公开ZB案件的相关细节，也是受到委托人的授权后的。同时，郭律师也不想用舆论来影响司法，本案也是已经被所有当事人能够主动提起的司法救济途径所“盖棺定论”后的，理论上是已经不会因社会舆论影响本案的公正处置了。
郭律师写这篇文章的根本目的，也不在于批判ZB案件的办案机关（当然不代表认同ZB的办案机关）。郭律师的根本目的，是希望立法、司法机关们能够对币圈案件的乱象提起重视，尽快地出台相关法律规定，从而有效化解社会矛盾，使得人民群众在每一个案件中都能都享受到司法所带来的公平正义，而不是让“无知”的公民参与违法的币圈项目，让“有心”的地方单位对币圈案件进行“趋利执法”，让“无良”的币圈项目方利用司法、执法的漏洞大肆收割国内资产。
Introduction: Tell a story. We reported the case a week before the official thunderstorm in China's currency, and got the receipt of the criminal case at the first time. However, the eggs still became extrajudicial fanatics. No matter how messy the currency circle was, it was always leeks. On the one hand, a pile of currency circle exchanges without thunderstorm were put on file for investigation, which led to the loss of money for leeks. On the other hand, the exchange cut tens of billions of leeks, but the case has not been established so far. The leeks have even gone to the flower circle in the boss's hometown to dig their ancestral graves, and they still can't put As the first lawyer in China who reported the case before the thunderstorm and got the receipt of the case only two weeks after the thunderstorm, the teacher broke the news today about some carefully thought-out facts of the thunderstorm case in China, and analyzed why he became a fanatic outside the law. From accepting the case to having no criminal facts, the exchange suddenly issued a notice saying that it had stopped charging the currency service. However, what everyone didn't know was that lawyer Guo had received it at the beginning of the month of. At that time, Mr. Guo was confident that even if he could not withdraw money, as long as the exchange was still there, it would be easy to say that the money was there. However, in reality, the case collapsed just after the first step, and this case became one of the few failed cases in which Mr. Guo represented the money circle refund. Since then, he has run away through the domestic office and the data coins on the chain have turned away. It is very important to notarize the information of the chat record website. Even though the server has been shut down, we still have the collection and arrangement of evidence at that time and the preparation of legal documents such as reporting materials. On April, Mr. Guo accompanied the client to file a criminal complaint with shenzhen public Nanshan Branch. The charges involved include fraud, fund-raising fraud, illegal business operation, illegal absorption of public deposits and illegal use of information networks. The facts involved include both criminal charges against the project leader and criminal charges. In order to confuse the criminal report of the exchange, I asked Du Niang why she reported so many charges and looked at the sharing in the second half. Next, we can draw the first key point. At first, after reporting the case, the case-handling organ did not issue a receipt for accepting the case to us according to the law. It was not until after some complaints and in-depth communication that she received the receipt for accepting the case on. Of course, even lawyer Guo became the first lawyer in China to successfully get the result of accepting the case. Interestingly, this time, A lot of leeks are still imagining that they can come back to life and oppose others to report the case. After all, people's announcements are only technical failures, and they are not official announcements. However, after more than a month of unremitting efforts by the case-handling organs, including but not limited to summoning a few related people such as Li Laoban, an old cadre in the currency circle, a notice of not filing a case was issued, and the reason was indicated that there was no criminal fact, not to mention the fact that this project list was unknown to most people. You can find it by asking Du Nian. A bunch of acts involved, so lawyer Guo put forward the reconsideration and review conclusion of criminal filing to the case-handling unit and the higher-level case-handling unit. Finally, he applied to the Nanshan District Procuratorate for filing supervision results. So many case-handling units still have no criminal facts. Whether the conclusion is correct or not? Listen to lawyer Guo's detailed analysis. Second, there is nothing to do with the lack of law and the law enforcement. First of all, lawyer Guo gives the conclusion whether the case is filed or not or other currency cases. Whether a crime is constituted or not is fundamentally due to the lack of existing legal provisions, which is why lawyer Guo listed so many charges when reporting the case. In theory, the same legal fact only constitutes one crime in order to promote the success of filing the case as much as possible. After all, as for the specific crime, it is a matter for the public authorities. Of course, it is recommended not to list the charges so casually when reporting the case. Therefore, lawyer Guo also has a bottom charge of killing all the charges. That is, the crime of illegal use of information network. Next, we will analyze what makes it a fanatic outside the law. Why do the case-handling units not consider and constitute the crime of illegal fund-raising? Generally speaking, the crime of illegal fund-raising is the crime of fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits. The most important feature is the formation of a fund pool, and as the name suggests, a bitcoin bank exchange that deposits money and earns interest takes into account the role of wallets and helps all kinds of counterfeit coins to enter. All the projects conform to the characteristics of the crime of illegal fund-raising. However, the key point is that the judicial organs in various places have qualitative differences on whether virtual currency belongs to the object of illegal fund-raising. According to the relevant provisions of the criminal law and its judicial interpretation, the object of non-absorption can only be funds, that is, legal tender or securities that can be used for production, operation or daily life. Therefore, whether virtual currency belongs to funds is the place where there are serious differences in judicial practice at present. However, it will be argued that virtual currency does not belong to funds, but from the prosecution's point of view, it will certainly be argued that virtual currency belongs to funds, but it is a particularly subtle point of view when it comes to whether the public security organ files a case. If the public security organ wants to file a case, it will think that it belongs to funds, and vice versa, so there will be cases of money circle wealth management wallet and virtual currency exchange. In some places, it will be convicted and sentenced for the crime of fund-raising fraud or illegally absorbing public deposits. Judgments of similar cases can be found in Guo Law. In the past, some of them were like this case. Second, why didn't the case-handling unit think that the crime of fraud, like the crime of property and the crime of theft and embezzlement in criminal law, needed to rely on property value assessment as the basis for conviction and sentencing? However, in the notice on preventing bitcoin risk, the notice on preventing the financing risk of token issuance, the notice on further preventing and handling the speculation risk of virtual currency trading and other policy documents of various ministries and commissions. Under the background of repeatedly emphasizing that virtual currency is not legal tender and related business activities are prohibited, and under the argument of the judicial academic viewpoints of the Supreme Law No.1 guiding case, such as China's prosecution and China's trial, there is a great controversy about whether virtual currency has value or not. Simply put, if the case-handling unit does not want to file a case, it can not file a case on the grounds that virtual currency can not determine the price, but on the contrary, it can file a case for investigation with virtual currency. It is also funny to say that the virtual currency represented by it will soon become a priority settlement tool in some industries, such as foreign trade gold. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
1.本站遵循行业规范，任何转载的稿件都会明确标注作者和来源；2.本站的原创文章，请转载时务必注明文章作者和来源，不尊重原创的行为我们将追究责任；3.作者投稿可能会经我们编辑修改或补充。
