Using friends' or relatives' bank cards to buy and sell USDT—what is the line between right and wrong?

Author: Lawyer Shao Shiwei

When buying and selling USDT (Tether) or other virtual currencies, is using a friend or family member’s bank card for collection and payment at intermediary points legally risky? If suspected of criminal activity, could one be charged with illegal business operation, aiding and abetting, concealment, or credit card management crimes? — The background for raising this question is as follows:

Recently, in a case involving a U商 (U-merchant) buying and selling USDT, the involved party was accused by judicial authorities of engaging in illegal business operations.

After six months of ongoing communication with the prosecuting attorney and multiple written legal opinions submitted, the prosecutor largely agreed with the defense’s argument based on the existing evidence chain: that the defendant may not have known that the funds received were being used by underground banks for USDT-based currency swapping, thus not constituting illegal business operation.

However, because the case involves tens of millions of yuan and, in recent years, the defendant has used dozens of friends’ and family members’ bank cards to handle virtual currency transactions, from the perspective of investigators, this operational mode does not resemble a “normal” business. Therefore, the prosecutor considers that even if it does not amount to illegal business, other charges such as credit card management, aiding and abetting, or concealment could be considered.

But Lawyer Shao believes that simply buying and selling USDT or other virtual currencies for profit, as long as no actual illicit funds are received and the person is unaware that others are using virtual currencies for foreign exchange trading and providing assistance, should not, in principle, be considered a criminal offense.

It cannot be justified by the investigators’ “naive” understanding—equating “abnormal” business with criminal conduct—this clearly contradicts the restraint inherent in criminal law.

Therefore, from the perspective of practical judicial application, the key questions are:

In cases where the person is unaware of upstream foreign exchange activities, can a merchant or ordinary individual, when using friends’ or family members’ bank cards for collection and payment in USDT transactions, be considered aiding and abetting or concealing, if ultimately not charged with illegal business operation? Or, as a fallback, could they be deemed to be obstructing credit card management?

Lawyer Shao believes that if it can be established that the person did not have the subjective intent of “knowing that others are doing foreign exchange,” then even if they used friends’ bank cards for collection and payment, they should not be charged with illegal business operation, aiding and abetting, or concealment. Under this premise, they also should not be considered to be obstructing credit card management (though in practice, there is a risk that judicial authorities may interpret broadly and apply this charge).

In other words, the real point of contention is not whether the person used others’ bank cards, but whether they had the subjective knowledge, how the funds are characterized, and whether the understanding of “possession” of bank cards is being overextended.

The detailed discussion on these points is as follows:

1. The alternative approach of treating obstructing credit card management as a principal offense

In judicial practice, if it is ultimately determined that the person commits the crime of obstructing credit card management, there are two possibilities:

1. Purely committing the offense of obstructing credit card management.

For example: the person acquires or controls a large number of bank cards but has not yet verified that these cards are involved in telecom fraud or other upstream crimes, and remains in a “stockpiling cards for sale” stage, without actual fund flow or collection and payment activities.

2. The person’s conduct involves both aiding and concealing, but the final judgment treats obstructing credit card management as the “principal” offense (aiding and abetting carries a maximum of three years, concealment up to seven years, while obstructing credit card management carries up to ten years).

For example: the defendant not only acquires many bank cards but also uses these cards to withdraw cash or transfer funds for upstream crimes. The court finds that the defendant’s conduct meets the elements of both obstructing credit card management and aiding information network crimes, but ultimately imposes a sentence based on obstructing credit card management as the principal.

2. Excluding aiding and concealment charges

Returning to the specific scenario discussed in this article—U商 or individuals using friends’ bank cards for RMB collection and payment in the process of buying and selling USDT—under these circumstances:

1. Is it possible to constitute aiding and abetting?

The answer is no. The reason is:

In cases involving USDT for disguised currency exchange, “currency exchange” itself is usually characterized as illegal business operation rather than an “information network crime.”

Therefore, even if the person is aware that the funds’ origin may be abnormal, they do not know that the funds are used for telecom fraud, online gambling, or other information network crimes. Their subjective intent does not meet the criteria for aiding and abetting under the “knowing that others are committing crimes using information networks” element.

2. Is it possible to constitute concealment?

This conclusion remains difficult to establish. The reason is:

In currency exchange activities, the circulating funds are the principal for exchange, and their nature is “funds from illegal business activities,” not “proceeds from completed crimes.” Mistaken understanding of the funds’ nature does not amount to the intent required for concealment.

Therefore, in the context of buying and selling USDT and using friends’ bank cards for collection and payment, it is difficult to classify the conduct as aiding and abetting or concealment, and there is no legal basis for reclassifying as obstructing credit card management.

3. Is obstructing credit card management a matter of physical possession or could it be overextended?

After excluding aiding and concealment, the analysis can proceed in two layers:

First, if the conduct is recognized as illegal business operation, then even if there is conduct that obstructs credit card management, it would be absorbed into the illegal business crime, and both charges would not be applied simultaneously.

Second, if, as in this article’s scenario, the conduct is not recognized as illegal business operation, then, as discussed, aiding and concealment charges cannot be established. With these two charges excluded, obstructing credit card management becomes the only possible charge.

However, the key difference is that this scenario differs fundamentally from typical cases of obstructing credit card management in judicial practice.

Typically, such cases involve:

The person purchasing or renting large quantities of strangers’ complete bank card sets (including cards, mobile SIMs, online banking U-shields, passwords, ID copies, etc., known as “four-piece sets”), and paying for them; then directly controlling and operating these cards for transactions.

In contrast, in the USDT buying and selling scenario discussed here:

The person uses friends’ bank cards, and there is no situation of strangers buying or selling cards; more importantly, the bank cards are always controlled and operated by the cardholder. The person does not possess the card, password, or online banking permissions; the friends only execute collection and payment instructions based on the person’s commands.

Therefore, the potential legal risk lies in how the judicial authorities interpret “possession” of bank cards. If they broaden the definition to include actual control or command over the cards (e.g., knowing the password, being able to instruct the cardholder to operate), then there is a risk of “possession” and thus criminal liability.

But this approach differs fundamentally from typical cases involving strangers’ “four-piece sets” and direct control over bank cards, where “possession” is essentially physical, exclusive, and direct.

In typical cases, “possession” involves:

The person purchasing or renting the cards, physically holding the card, password, and online banking tools, and being able to operate independently without the cardholder’s consent. This control is stable, continuous, and clearly illegal.

In the scenario discussed here:

The so-called “control” over bank cards is actually a conditional, indirect, and functional authorization based on a relationship (friendship) and mutual agreement (collection and payment instructions). The person does not own the card, nor do they possess the core password information; each transfer depends on the cooperation of the cardholder. This control is conditional and unstable.

Therefore, Lawyer Shao believes that equating this instruction-based, indirect fund channel relationship with “illegal possession of others’ bank cards” in criminal law constitutes an overextension of legal interpretation.

This scenario should not be considered as constituting obstructing credit card management.

4. Final remarks

In cases involving new types of crimes such as virtual currencies, the forms of criminal conduct are constantly evolving, and judicial practice shows significant diversity and uncertainty. As a result, legal application often falls into a gray area.

On the “borderline” between crime and non-crime, whether the conduct can be properly evaluated depends heavily on the details of evidence and legal reasoning; when disputes arise, the direction of the legal “balance” reflects the value of criminal defense.

Therefore, defense lawyers handling criminal cases must pay close attention to every factual detail, every chain of evidence, and every legal controversy, striving to secure the most favorable outcome for their clients.