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 there a legal risk in using friends’ or relatives’ bank cards for collection and payment on behalf of others? If suspected of committing a criminal offense, could one be charged with illegal business operation, aiding and abetting, concealment, or obstructing credit card management? — 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 submissions of written legal opinions, 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 upstream underground banks for USDT-based currency swapping, thus not constituting illegal business operation.

However, because the case involves a sum of hundreds of millions of yuan, and in recent years the defendant has used dozens of friends’ and relatives’ bank cards to handle virtual currency transactions for collection and payment, from the perspective of the case handlers, this operational mode does not resemble a “normal” business. Therefore, the prosecutor considers that even if it does not amount to illegal business operation, they are still considering charging the defendant with other crimes, such as obstructing credit card management, aiding and abetting, or concealment.

However, Lawyer Shao believes that simply buying and selling USDT or other virtual currencies to profit from price differences, as long as no actual illicit funds are received and there is no knowledge 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 merely because the case handlers have a “naive” understanding—equating “abnormal” business activities with criminal conduct—this clearly contradicts the restraint inherent in criminal law.

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

In the absence of knowledge about upstream foreign exchange activities, when a U商 or ordinary individual uses friends’ or relatives’ bank cards for collection and payment of USDT transactions, if ultimately not constituting illegal business operation, could they be considered aiding and abetting or concealment? Or, as a secondary measure, could they be deemed to obstruct credit card management?

Lawyer Shao believes that if it can be established that the actor did not have the subjective intent of “knowing that others are engaging in foreign exchange,” then even if they used friends’ or relatives’ bank cards for collection and payment, it should not constitute illegal business operation, aiding and abetting, or concealment; under this premise, it also generally should not be considered obstructing credit card management (though in practice, there is a risk that judicial authorities may expand the interpretation and apply this crime).

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

The detailed discussion on these points is as follows:

1. Choosing the primary offense: Obstructing credit card management

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

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

For example: The actor 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 for sale” state, not yet involved in actual fund flow or collection and payment activities.

2. The actor’s conduct involves aiding and abetting or concealment, but the final judgment chooses to treat it as obstructing credit card management (with maximum sentences of three years for aiding and abetting, seven years for concealment, and ten years for obstructing credit card management).

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

2. Excluding aiding and abetting or concealment

Returning to the specific scenario discussed—U商 or individuals using friends’ bank cards for RMB collection and payment during USDT transactions—the following applies:

1. Is it possible to constitute aiding and abetting?

Answer: No. Because in the context of USDT-based exchange activities, “foreign exchange” itself is usually characterized as illegal business operation rather than an “information network crime.”

Therefore, even if the actor is aware that the funds’ origin may be abnormal, but does not know that the funds are used for telecom fraud, online gambling, or other information network crimes, their subjective state does not meet the criteria for aiding and abetting.

2. Is it possible to constitute concealment?

Answer: It remains unlikely. Because in the exchange activities, the circulating funds are the principal amount for the exchange, and their nature is “funds from illegal business activities,” not “proceeds from completed crimes.” The actor’s mistaken understanding of the funds’ nature cannot establish the intent for concealment.

Thus, in the scenario of buying and selling USDT and using friends’ bank cards for collection and payment, it is difficult to evaluate as aiding and abetting or concealment, and there is no basis for judicial reclassification to obstructing credit card management.

3. Obstructing credit card management: physical possession or overextended interpretation?

After ruling out 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 could be considered obstructing credit card management, it would be absorbed into the illegal business operation charge, and both cannot be applied simultaneously.

Second, if, as discussed, the conduct is not recognized as illegal business operation, then, as previously stated, aiding and abetting or concealment cannot be established. With these two crimes excluded, obstructing credit card management becomes the only possible charge.

However, the key difference is that the typical scenarios in judicial practice for obstructing credit card management involve:

• Large-scale procurement of strangers’ complete bank card data (including card, mobile phone, online banking U-shield and password, ID copies, etc., known as the “four-piece set”), with payment of consideration;

• The actor directly controls and operates these cards for transactions.

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

• The actor uses friends’ bank cards, not strangers’ cards;

• The cards are always controlled and operated by the cardholders themselves;

• The actor does not possess the card, password, or online banking permissions; the friends only execute collection and payment instructions.

The potential legal risk lies in how the judicial authorities interpret “possession” of bank cards. If expanded to mean that as long as the actor can actually control or command the cards (e.g., knowing the password or being able to instruct the cardholder), then there is a risk of “possession” and thus criminal liability.

However, this interpretation differs fundamentally from typical cases involving strangers’ “four-piece set” cards, where the person directly controls the physical card and related tools.

In typical cases, “possession” involves physical, exclusive control—buying, renting, or otherwise obtaining the card, and being able to operate it independently of the cardholder.

In the scenario discussed here, the so-called “control” over bank cards is based on a relationship (with friends) and mutual agreement (instructions for collection and payment). The actor does not possess the physical card or core passwords; each transfer depends on the cardholder’s cooperation. This control is conditional and unstable.

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

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

4. Final remarks

In cases involving virtual currencies and other emerging crimes, criminal forms 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 criminal and non-criminal conduct, whether the behavior can be properly evaluated depends heavily on the details of evidence and legal reasoning; when disputes arise, the balance of the law ultimately reflects the value of criminal defense.

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