继广东省高院“这种差价不能赚”之后 境内OTC都是非法经营？
导读
目前，很多办案单位在讨论：对于OTC商家通过买卖稳定币USDT来赚差价的行为，能不能给这些币商定一个“非法经营罪”呢？12月16日，广东省高级人民法院发的一则文章《这种差价，不能赚！》给出了自己的答案：买卖USDT赚差价属变相买卖外汇，情节严重的，以非法经营罪定罪处罚。
大埔县法院的判决被广东省高院认为具有典型意义。一般人也会觉得，“OTC商家”倒卖USDT挣差价，怎么说都是一门生意，都能算作经营行为。但是吧，不得不说：我们国家《刑法》规定的“非法经营罪”，是要有严格的条件的，不是你感觉只要做生意的没办营业执照就是非法经营罪。所以，能不能构成非法经营罪，还是要看法律条文的规定。
一、法院为何会将买卖USDT赚差价的行为认定为非法经营罪？
根据广东省高院官方公众号发布的文章，在广东省梅州市大埔县法院审理的陈某非法经营案中，被告人陈某通过虚拟币交易平台向不特定散户收购泰达币，并雇请保镖李某护送其买币现金，之后，利用手机与黄某（未到案）交易约81.4万个，按当天人民币与美元的汇率，兑换人民币510万余元。大埔县法院一审认为：陈某、李某这种通过买卖虚拟货币进行外币与人民币之间的兑换的行为，属于变相买卖外汇，且达到情节严重，构成非法经营罪。案件宣判后，由于二人均表示服判，并未提起上诉，上诉期届满后上述一审判决生效。
广东省高院认为：泰达币是一种与美元挂钩的虚拟货币，其价格相对稳定且可匿名在全球流通，然而泰达币的高度流通性、匿名性、监管困难性吸引了大量犯罪资本，买卖泰达币的社会危害性极大。因此，本案对打击虚拟货币的新型领域案件具有典型意义。承办该案的罗法官在接受采访时表示：“泰达币是国外虚拟货币交易平台的中间币种，属于稳定价值货币美元的代币……大笔资金通过泰达币兑换成美元的行为，必然会减少国家的外汇储备，影响国家对外汇的宏观管理，破坏了人民币在国内市场上的唯一合法地位，也极大干扰了外汇管理的有效性和合法汇率的稳定性，扰乱正常的金融市场秩序，属变相买卖外汇的行为，应当予以惩治。”
对于上述观点，刘磊律师团队不敢苟同：非法经营罪作为法定犯，具有严格的入罪条件，要求必须存在违反前置法的行为，而上述案例中陈某买卖USDT赚差价的行为，究竟是否属于前置法规定的违法行为？USDT能否从法律上解读为外汇？都存在很大的争议，法院在厘清这些问题之前就将被告人的行为认定为非法经营罪，甚至将判决作为典型案例予以公开宣传，我们认为存在不妥之处。
二、买卖USDT挣差价构成非法经营罪的前提
从法条来看，构成《刑法》第225条非法经营罪的几种情形有：
（一）未经许可经营法律、行政法规规定的专营、专卖物品或者其他限制买卖的物品的；
（二）买卖进出口许可证、进出口原产地证明以及其他法律、行政法规规定的经营许可证或者批准文件的；
（三）未经国家有关主管部门批准非法经营证券、期货、保险业务的，或者非法从事资金支付结算业务的；
（四）其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为。
从虚拟货币的性质来看，其显然不属于法律、行政法规规定的专营、专卖物品或者明确限制买卖的物品，也不属于法律、行政法规规定的经营许可证或者批准文件。因此，高频地买卖虚拟币挣差价（也就是行业内称谓的“币商”、“OTC商家”、“U商”、“搬砖套利挣差价”），显然不属于《刑法》第225条第一、二款规定的情形。那么，我们将重点从该法条的后几款展开论述：
第一、按照《刑法》第225条第三款，需要将OTC商家买卖币的模式，解读为“资金支付结算”。但实际上，OTC商家从业务模式上，更类似黄牛中介，与传统的第三方、第四方支付形成沉淀资金池的模式并不相同，尤其是场外线下模式的交易。
第二、按照《刑法》第225条第四款，需要将OTC商家买卖币的模式，解读为“严重扰乱市场经济秩序”的行为。但是，根据最高法《关于准确理解和适用刑法中“国家规定”的有关问题的通知》（法发2011/155号）：“对被告人的行为是否属于刑法第二百二十五条第(四)款规定的‘其它严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为’，有关司法解释未作明确规定的，应当作为法律适用问题，逐级向最高人民法院请示。”所以说，如果将OTC商家这种买卖虚拟币的行为套用《刑法》第225条第四款进而适用非法经营罪，需要咱们基层法院逐级向最高人民法院请示。
第三、除了刑法225条关于非法经营罪的明确解释，还有一个司法解释可以将OTC商家这种买卖虚拟币的行为解释为非法经营罪。这个法条是：《关于办理非法从事资金支付结算业务、非法买卖外汇刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第三条，其中明确了：非法从事资金支付结算业务或者非法买卖外汇，经营数额在五百万元以上的；属于情节严重，构成非法经营罪。
三、OTC商家买卖稳定币USDT，这个稳定币能够从法律上解读为外汇吗？
通过第一段的论述，我们知道了：OTC商家买卖虚拟币的行为不属于“资金支付结算”，另外，在没有司法解释明确“严重扰乱市场经济秩序”这一兜底表述的内涵和外延的情况下，也不宜将上述行为直接纳入其规制范围。那么，若要将OTC商家的行为认定为非法经营罪，相对合理的论证逻辑只能是：虚拟币属于外汇，从而买卖虚拟币的行为可能构成“非法买卖外汇”型的非法经营罪。
但，问题是：OTC商家买卖稳定币USDT，这个稳定币USDT能够从法律上解读为外汇吗？
按照文义解释：外汇应当是主权国家发行的法定货币；而USDT是民间企业Tether公司推出的基于稳定价值货币美元（USD）的代币，应当纳入不到外汇的解释当中。且，关于虚拟货币的定性问题，目前在法律界的争议也非常多：是否能够直接把虚拟货币认定为外汇？还是应当认定为虚拟商品？对此，主要有两种不同观点：一种观点认为，只有境外某国或地区的中央政府发行的法定货币可以称作外汇，而虚拟货币只是一种虚拟商品；另一种观点认为，可以将虚拟货币看作外汇，理由是《外汇管理条例》中规定的外汇不仅包含主权国家的法定货币，还包括非货币形态的支付凭证、证券、提款权等。由于存在较大争议，实务办案之中，基本上没有见到办案部门将稳定币直接解释为外汇的。
根据《外汇管理条例》第三条的规定：本条例所称外汇，是指下列以外币表示的可以用作国际清偿的支付手段和资产：
（一）外币现钞，包括纸币、铸币；
（二）外币支付凭证或者支付工具，包括票据、银行存款凭证、银行卡等；
（三）外币有价证券，包括债券、股票等；
（四）特别提款权；
（五）其他外汇资产。
我们认为：首先，虚拟货币不属于“外币”。《外汇管理条例》中的“外币”应当仅指其他主权国家政府制作并统一发行的法定货币，比如美元、欧元、日元等。作为交易媒介，法定货币主要依赖于国家的信用和一国公众的普遍接受，而虚拟货币并不是由其他主权国家官方发行的，没有国家的信用支持，其发行者作为优胜劣汰的市场组织，还不具有足够的公信力使全社会认同和接受其发行的虚拟货币。事实上，虚拟货币通常只在特定的交易圈内获得认可并流转，尽管其在一定范围内发展迅速，但是相对于整个国民经济，其流通领域仍十分狭小，根本不可能在国际上“普遍流通”。因此，虚拟货币不属于“外币”。
其次，虚拟货币也不属于非货币形态的“用作国际清偿的支付手段和资产”。像证券、票据、银行卡等支付凭证，主要是指可以作为经济社会中商品或服务价值的衡量手段，节约交易成本。虚拟货币虽然在其交易圈内可以在某种程度上衡量价值，但其本身的价值主要受发行者影响，并且仍然需要以法定货币为依据来进行判断。假设某商品价值10个USDT，在某个时点市场对该商品的需求是100个，且市场中只有该商品流通，若此时人民币与USDT的兑换比率是1：1，那么此时市场对该商品的需求就是1000元。若发行者无偿发行1000个USDT，由于人们对该商品的衡量仍是以人民币为基础的，那么USDT就会由于发行增加导致价值大幅减少。可见，虚拟货币若作为支付手段，也只能是以人民币作为基础的中间换算单位存在的，人们并不能离开现实中的真实货币直接利用虚拟货币对商品或服务进行定价。因此，USDT等虚拟货币并不能用作一般支付手段，更不用说进行国际支付了。
按照目的解释：无论是《外汇管理条例》等中对外汇的严格管制，还是《刑法》中将达到一定数额的非法买卖外汇行为规定为犯罪，其核心目的不仅是为了加强对人民币境外流通和交易的管理，更多的是在经济全球化大背景下，维护人民币财产和外汇财产国际流通的正常秩序，从而保护人民币在国际市场中的稳定价值和交易地位。而如上所述，虚拟货币实质上仍然属于一种虚拟商品，尽管其流通范围在近些年呈逐渐扩大趋势，但仍不具有且将来也基本上不可能具有与法定货币等同的功能和地位，OTC商家所从事的虚拟币交易在很大程度上仅仅影响虚拟币自身的价值，与直接私下将人民币与外币兑换的“非法买卖外汇”行为相比，其对人民币币值的冲击可以说是微乎其微。因此，我们没有必要将一个单纯的虚拟商品买卖行为，上升到“非法买卖外汇”这一扰乱市场经济秩序的层面，但是，如果OTC商家确切知晓商家购买稳定币USDT的用途是换成外汇，也就是把稳定币USDT当做换汇的桥梁，则OTC商家这种买卖稳定币USDT，属于帮人最终换汇的行为，如果达到500万的金额，则可以认定为非法经营罪。
四、律师有话说
以上是关于“买卖USDT挣差价的OTC商家”是否构成非法经营罪的论述，很显然，在广东高院发布的上述案例中，陈某买卖USDT挣差价的行为不宜直接认定为非法经营罪。
对于该案判决，刘磊律师认为：刑法应当秉持谦抑性精神，在相关法律法规的规定尚不明确的情形下，应当以有利于被告人精神为指导，贯彻罪刑法定原则，采取相对严格的入罪标准，以免侵害到公民的正当权益，甚至阻碍市场经济的良性发展。
At present, many case-handling units are discussing whether it is possible to agree on an illegal business crime for merchants to earn the difference by buying and selling stable coins. An article issued by the Guangdong Higher People's Court on April gave their own answers. Buying and selling the difference is a disguised form of buying and selling foreign exchange. If the circumstances are serious, the dapu county court's judgment is considered to be typical by the Guangdong Higher People's Court. Most people will also think that merchants are all students who earn the difference by reselling. Meaning can be counted as business behavior, but it must be said that the crime of illegal business operation stipulated in our country's criminal law requires strict conditions. It is not that you feel that as long as you do business without a business license, it is illegal business operation, so whether it can constitute the crime of illegal business operation depends on the provisions of the law. Why does a court consider the behavior of buying and selling to make a difference as the crime of illegal business operation? According to an article published by WeChat official account, the official of the Guangdong Provincial High Court, the defendant was in the Chen Mou illegal business operation case tried by the dapu county Court in Meizhou City, Guangdong Province. Chen Mou bought TEDA coins from unspecified retail investors through the virtual currency trading platform, and hired a bodyguard Li to escort him to buy cash. After using his mobile phone, he traded about 10,000 yuan with Huang at the exchange rate of RMB and US dollars on that day. The first instance of dapu county court held that Chen Mou Li's exchange between foreign currency and RMB by buying and selling virtual currency was a disguised form of buying and selling foreign exchange, and the circumstances were serious enough to constitute the crime of illegal business. After the verdict, both of them said that they did not accept the sentence. After the expiration of the appeal period, the above-mentioned first-instance judgment came into effect. The Guangdong Provincial High Court held that TEDA currency is a virtual currency linked to the US dollar, and its price is relatively stable and can be circulated anonymously around the world. However, the high liquidity and anonymity of TEDA currency attract a large number of criminal capital to buy and sell TEDA currency, which is extremely harmful to society. Therefore, this case is of typical significance to the new-type cases of cracking down on virtual currency. Judge Luo, who undertook the case, said in an interview that TEDA currency is a foreign virtual currency transaction. Taiwan's intermediate currency is a stable value currency, and the exchange of large sums of money into dollars through TEDA coins will inevitably reduce the country's foreign exchange reserves, undermine the country's macro-management of foreign exchange, undermine the only legal status of RMB in the domestic market, and greatly interfere with the effectiveness of foreign exchange management and the stability of the legal exchange rate, disrupting the normal financial market order, which is a disguised act of buying and selling foreign exchange and should be punished. In order to be a statutory criminal, there must be a violation of the pre-law. In the above case, whether Chen Mou's behavior of buying and selling the price difference belongs to the illegal behavior stipulated in the pre-law or whether it can be interpreted as foreign exchange from the legal point of view is very controversial. Before clarifying these problems, the court identified the defendant's behavior as the crime of illegal business operation and even publicized the judgment as a typical case. We think there are some shortcomings. Second, the premise of the crime of illegal business operation is from the law. Judging from the several situations that constitute the crime of illegal business operation in Article 1 of the Criminal Law, there are: 1) dealing in monopoly goods or other goods whose trading is restricted according to laws and administrative regulations without permission; 2) buying and selling import and export licenses, import and export certificates of origin and business licenses or approval documents stipulated by other laws and administrative regulations; 3) illegally operating securities and futures insurance business without the approval of the relevant competent departments of the state, or illegally engaging in fund payment and settlement business; and 4) other illegal businesses that seriously disrupt market order. Judging from the nature of virtual currency, it obviously does not belong to the monopoly goods stipulated by laws and administrative regulations, nor does it belong to the business license or approval documents stipulated by laws and administrative regulations. Therefore, it is obvious that buying and selling virtual currency at high frequency to earn the price difference, that is, the money dealers called in the industry to arbitrage and earn the price difference, does not belong to the situation stipulated in the first two paragraphs of Article 1 of the Criminal Law. Then we will focus on the latter paragraphs of this Article. First, according to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Criminal Law, It is necessary to interpret the mode of merchants buying and selling coins as payment and settlement of funds, but in fact, the business mode of merchants is more similar to that of scalper intermediaries, which is different from that of traditional third-party fourth-party payment, especially for off-site transactions. Secondly, according to Article 4 of the Criminal Law, it is necessary to interpret the mode of merchants buying and selling coins as an act that seriously disrupts the order of the market economy, but according to the notification law of the Supreme Law on accurately understanding and applying the relevant issues stipulated by the state in the Criminal Law, the number is issued to the people. Whether the accuser's behavior belongs to other illegal business operations that seriously disrupt the market order as stipulated in the fourth paragraph of Article 225 of the Criminal Law, if the judicial interpretation is not clearly defined, it should be asked from the Supreme People's Court step by step as a matter of legal application. Therefore, if the merchant's behavior of buying and selling virtual currency is applied to the crime of illegal business operation, it is necessary for our grass-roots courts to ask the Supreme People's Court step by step. Third, in addition to the clear explanation of the crime of illegal business operation in the Criminal Law, there are A judicial interpretation can interpret this behavior of buying and selling virtual currency by merchants as the crime of illegal business operation. This article is an interpretation of several issues concerning the application of laws in handling criminal cases of illegally engaging in fund payment and settlement business and illegally buying and selling foreign exchange. Article 3 clarifies that illegally engaging in fund payment and settlement business or illegally buying and selling foreign exchange business with an amount of more than 5 million yuan is a serious case and constitutes the crime of illegal business operation. Can the stable currency be legally interpreted as foreign exchange? In the first paragraph, we know that the behavior of merchants buying and selling virtual currency does not belong to the payment and settlement of funds. In addition, it is not appropriate to directly bring the above behavior into the scope of its regulation without the judicial interpretation to clearly define the connotation and extension of the expression that seriously disrupts the market economic order. Then, if the behavior of merchants is considered as the crime of illegal business operation, the relatively reasonable argument logic can only be that the behavior of buying and selling virtual currency belongs to foreign exchange, which may constitute the crime of illegal business operation of illegally buying and selling foreign exchange. Can businesses buy and sell stable currency be legally interpreted as foreign exchange? According to the literal interpretation, foreign exchange should be the legal tender issued by sovereign countries, but the tokens based on the stable value currency dollar introduced by private enterprises should not be included in the interpretation of foreign exchange, and there are many disputes about the nature of virtual currency in the legal field at present. There are mainly two different views on whether virtual currency can be directly recognized as foreign exchange or virtual goods. One view is that only the legal tender issued by the central government of a foreign country or region can be called foreign exchange and virtual currency is only one. 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。
