Lawyer: If a virtual currency investment and wealth management platform is shut down, will employees, research analysts, and business representatives all be identified as fraudsters?

Author: Lawyer Shao Shiwei

Original Link:

Disclaimer: This article is a reprint. Readers can find more information through the original link. If the author has any objections to the reprint, please contact us, and we will make modifications according to the author’s requirements. Reprints are for information sharing only and do not constitute any investment advice or represent Wu Shuo’s views and positions.

In cases involving virtual currency fraud, many of those investigated or arrested are actually ordinary employees within the company, such as salespeople, research teachers, customer service, or technical staff.

On the surface, everyone appears to work for the same company, but in criminal cases, different positions and responsibilities often correspond to completely different legal consequences.

Therefore, judging whether a person will be deemed a scammer cannot be based solely on “the company got into trouble” or “whether they were all arrested together.” More importantly, three key aspects should be considered:

1. What is the relationship between the company and the platform?

2. What exactly does the person do within the team?

3. What is the composition of their income?

These three questions often determine the direction of the entire case.

1. Not all employees are treated as scammers when a company gets into trouble

Many family members involved in criminal cases tend to fall into a common misconception: as long as the company is classified as a scam, will all employees be treated as scammers?

The answer is not that simple.

In virtual currency investment cases, the common business models are not exactly the same. Some platforms operate their own schemes and control the backend; some are responsible for attracting traffic and bringing in customers; others focus on research, signal provision, community management, etc.

Each model has a different legal evaluation.

In other words, even if it’s all “virtual currency investment and wealth management,” some are at the core of the scam chain, while others are just peripheral links. For employees in different positions and levels, responsibility recognition naturally varies.

In practice, it is also necessary to further distinguish one situation:

Some platforms indeed manipulate the backend, create false market conditions, and maliciously cause user losses. However, some platforms are inherently high-risk investment modes, and user losses may only be due to market fluctuations and investment risks.

These two situations are not entirely the same legally. Therefore, in specific cases, it is often necessary to analyze the platform’s actual operation mode further.

2. Responsibility varies greatly among employees in the same company based on their roles

Generally, the platform controllers, owners, technical leaders, and financial personnel are more likely to be recognized as core figures in the case.

Roles such as salespeople, research teachers, customer service, operations, and administrative staff require further examination of their specific duties: whether they are merely executing arrangements and receiving fixed wages, or deeply involved in platform operations, customer attraction, profit sharing, and settlement, or even directly linked to customer losses.

As employees, some may only perform basic tasks for fixed wages, while others may be indispensable parts of the entire business chain.

Therefore, the most important thing for family members is not to ask generally “how serious is it,” but to first understand clearly: what position does their family member hold within this team?

3. Judging responsibility often depends on these three questions

First, what is the relationship between the company and the platform?

Is it their own platform, controlled backend, or just responsible for attracting traffic, cooperation, and promotion for another platform?

This point often directly affects the overall classification of the case.

Second, what exactly is their responsibility within the team?

Are they owners, technical staff, management, or salespeople, research teachers, customer service, administrative personnel?

Different roles often carry very different responsibilities in the eyes of judicial authorities.

Third, how does their income work?

Is it a fixed salary, or commission based on client transaction volume, or even profit sharing from client losses?

Income models often directly influence judgments about “whether they knew” or “whether there was intent to commit fraud.”

Many family members worry most about whether “the company got into trouble, and whether all employees will be sentenced together.” However, in judicial practice, it is often not that simple. Instead, these three questions need to be examined separately.

4. Many employees may not truly understand the overall operation of the platform

This is also a very easy but critical point often overlooked in many virtual currency cases.

Within some companies, roles are highly specialized: some are responsible for explaining market conditions, others for maintaining clients, some for community promotion, and others only for technical maintenance or customer service and administrative support. Many employees only have contact with their small part of the work.

They may not really understand whether the platform backend can be manipulated, where the client funds ultimately flow, how the profit sharing between the boss and the platform works, or what the platform’s actual profit model is.

In fraud cases, determining whether someone commits a crime is not just about whether “the company has issues,” but also whether they knew about the fraudulent behavior, whether they were deeply involved in business operations, and whether there is a direct利益关系 with client losses.

For example, a research teacher who only discusses technical analysis or market trends without inducing clients to open accounts might fall into the knowledge payment category; but if the teacher knows the platform has problems and still promotes signals or reverse signals in live broadcasts, or posts false profit screenshots in groups, they are directly involved in fraudulent behavior.

Therefore, in specific cases, a comprehensive analysis of the company’s business model, team structure, and individual responsibilities is necessary. Many defense opportunities are hidden in these details.

5. Conclusion

In virtual currency cases, even if the case is officially filed as “fraud,” there is often room for defense.

On one hand, these cases tend to involve complex business models and team divisions. Many employees only handle a part of the process and are unaware of the overall platform operation.

On the other hand, the virtual currency industry itself is highly technical and specialized. In some cases, investigators may be encountering similar models for the first time and may not fully understand the industry’s operation methods.

In such situations, some business models in the gray area may be initially misunderstood as scams during investigation. Certainly, some platforms do manipulate backend data and create false market conditions to maliciously cause user losses; but others, user losses may simply be due to market fluctuations.

These differences are often very important in the classification of cases.