Research On Criminal Responsibility For Self-money Laundering In Online Transactions Under The Background Of Money Laundering Crime Revision

With the support of online transaction technology,self-money laundering is more concealed and complicated,and it is easier to break through geographical barriers.The high incidence of self-money laundering in online transactions has given rise to the necessity of individual criminal responsibility for self-money laundering.To this end,the "Criminal Law Amendment(11)" has amended the crime of money laundering,deleted the third-person perspective,and officially criminalized self-money laundering.However,unlike traditional self-money laundering,online transaction self-money laundering has the particularity of infringing dual legal interests.It not only violates the financial management order and the normal activities of judicial organs,but also destroys the cyberspace management order.Therefore,the amendment of the crime of money laundering is still not enough to fully evaluate the criminal responsibility of self-money laundering in online transactions,and further research is needed on this issue.First of all,when determining the crime of money laundering in online transaction self-laundering,the uniqueness of the online transaction method should be used as the basis,and the constituent elements of the crime of money laundering should be specially applied.In terms of subjects,in addition to self-money laundering actors,online transaction service providers and technology providers can be the subjects of this crime.In terms of objective behavior,providing online fund accounts,converting property through online transactions or illegal settlements have become a type of means of self-money laundering in online transactions.On the subjective side,the word "knowingly" has been deleted in the crime of money laundering,which has lowered the standard of subjective guilt proof,and effectively addressed the problem of obscuring the connection between upstream and downstream crimes due to online transactions.Secondly,the involvement of online transactions makes the problem of determining the number of self-money laundering crimes more difficult,and the different situations of one crime and multiple crimes should be studied according to specific behaviors.Circumstances that constitute one crime include: when it is difficult to find out whether the predicate crime is one of the seven statutory crimes of money laundering,according to the principle of the special relationship of overlapping laws and regulations,it should be determined that the perpetrator of money laundering constitutes the crime of covering up,concealing the proceeds of crime,and the proceeds of crime;When the self-money laundering actor uses the Internet-related crime as a means of money laundering,the self-money laundering of the online transaction constitutes an implicated criminal;when the self-money laundering actor’s disguise and concealment can be evaluated by the predicate crime,it is only determined that it constitutes a predicate crime.crime.In addition to the above exceptions,in principle,there is a relationship between self-money laundering in online transactions and predicate crimes.In addition,when a cyber-related crime committed by a self-money launderer is a preparatory act for money laundering,he should be punished for several crimes.Finally,self-money laundering accomplices have also created a brand-new problem of identifying accomplices.On the basis of the difficulty of identifying accomplices already existing in cybercrime,the identification of self-money laundering accomplices in online transactions is even more difficult.With regard to conspiracy beforehand and during the matter,self-money laundering actors and downstream money laundering helpers should be punished for multiple crimes that constitute money laundering crimes and predicate crimes.For the post-event assistance,when the downstream money laundering helper voluntarily provides online payment and settlement services,it may constitute the crime of helping information network criminal activities or illegal business operations.When the downstream money laundering helper passively refuses to fulfill the anti-money laundering supervision obligations,it may constitute the crime of refusing to fulfill the obligation of information network security management,and its behavior also constitutes imaginary coexistence with helping online transactions to self-money laundering.