In this typical case selected by the Supreme People's Court for violations involving infringement of citizens' personal information crimes, the defendant relied on encrypted communication tools to infiltrate the information black market, illegally obtaining over 900 million pieces of citizens' personal information data. They then filtered and organized over 170 million pieces of sensitive data, creating a so-called "social engineering database" website, providing on-demand search and precise "human flesh" query services, using virtual currency as the sole payment method, forming a black industrial chain from data collection, storage, querying to selling. More shockingly, the defendant established a "boxing person" group in the encrypted communication tool, using this information as a weapon to disclose privacy focused on specific targets, organizing online violence. The operation of "one-click boxing" is a systematic tearing of the boundary of citizens’ personal information. After the trial, the court convicted the defendant of infringing citizens' personal information and related crimes, with the principal offender sentenced to seven years in prison. When the Supreme People's Court publicly released it as a typical case to explain the law, it essentially sent a signal to the market and industry platforms about a unified judgment rule, clearly indicating that crimes against personal information using virtual currency and "boxing" online violence would be subjected to high pressure and zero tolerance judicial strikes within the current legal framework.

900 Million Pieces of Data Sold: Encrypted Tools Support Black Market Assembly Line

In this case, the data black market first established an "assembly line." The defendant collected citizens' personal information through various means, illegally obtaining more than 900 million pieces of data, which was then put into a self-built database for unified management. They then built the "social engineering database" website, extracting over 170 million pieces of personal information from the massive backend database, providing an open query entry. For upstream collectors, this social engineering database is the "total warehouse" of raw data; for downstream buyers, it is a ready-made "search terminal." As long as they master some clues, they can trace back to sensitive information like names and contact details from the database, making the social engineering database the central node of the entire chain, supporting a complete closed loop of information from collection, storage to external distribution.

The transaction process was deliberately moved outside of encrypted space. The involved parties did not directly post contact information on the website, but instead guided upstream and downstream to connect needs and negotiate prices through encrypted communication tools, then completing payments with virtual currency. The on-chain transfers circumvented traditional banking systems' transaction monitoring, allowing this black industrial chain to efficiently transfer funds cross-platform and cross-region, while significantly increasing the difficulty of tracking the funds. For ordinary citizens, once information is incorporated into such a social engineering database, it may be used for precise scams, account theft, account takeover, and other downstream crimes; for companies and financial institutions, such leaked data means that risks of mass attacks and cash-grabbing could be triggered at any time. After the data, communication, and funds were reconnected through encrypted tools, the leakage of personal privacy rapidly evolved into a systemic risk to platform security and financial risk control.

Supreme Court's Involvement: How to Convict for Privacy Invasion Using Encrypted Payments

After the risk chain was clarified, the case entered the trial phase, where the question was no longer "is there a mistake" but rather "how to determine a mistake within the existing criminal law framework." The court's judgment path was clear: first, revert the behavior to traditional legal provisions — illegally obtaining and trading over 900 million pieces of citizens' personal information, building a "social engineering database" website storing over 170 million pieces of data, was recognized as infringing citizens' personal information and related crimes; then view the "boxing person" and organizing online violence as further violations of the victim's privacy rights and personal rights, evaluating the overall situation from motives, methods to consequences. The encrypted communication tool was merely a channel for contact and division of labor, while virtual currency was just a means of settlement and profit-sharing, but the reasoning for the judgment always focused on one axis: whether there was a large-scale, systematic violation of citizens' personal information rights and whether this caused real harmful consequences. It was under this logic that the leading offender, due to their core position in the entire black industrial chain, was sentenced to seven years in prison. Given the background of tightening criminal laws and judicial interpretations in recent years, this sentence itself was designed as a positive warning against similar behaviors.

The Supreme People's Court subsequently selected this case as a typical case involving violations of citizens' personal information crimes, effectively publicly solidifying this judgment approach: utilizing virtual currency for payment and settlement does not change the criminal nature of the behavior, nor will it escape the scope of current criminal law due to "on-chain settlement" or "cross-border payments." The typical case system itself is used to unify judgment standards and respond to social concerns. This time, the Supreme Court directly targeted the combined form of "virtual currency + personal information black market + boxing online violence," sending a clear signal to law enforcement agencies — from now on, in cases with similar structures, they can refer to this case for determining charges and sentencing, and must also include personal information violations, online violence consequences, and tool-related risks into evidence review and reasoning frameworks. For practitioners and participants in the encrypted asset industry, this seven-year judgment is not just a number, but rather tells everyone: as long as it touches the bottom line of citizens' personal information and personal rights, no matter what encrypted payment means are used, it will not become a "legal blind spot" for evading responsibility.

From On-chain to Off-chain: How Police Track 'Invisible' Funds

In this case, the defendant attempted to establish a black industrial chain that utilizes encrypted payments as settlement tools, believing that by hiding behind "on-chain anonymity," they could erase traces. However, in reality, even though specific investigative methods have not been disclosed, the flow of funds was ultimately locked down, and responsible parties were held accountable under the law, relying on a combination of "on-chain records + platform cooperation + off-chain evidence collection." On-chain transactions have traceability, and each address spreading outward resembles an increasingly extended route map. Law enforcement can freeze key addresses at the front end, restore the flow of funds, connect real identities through realized information and risk control records from encrypted asset service providers in the middle section, and at the end combine traditional methods like device evidence, chat records, and payment accounts to complete the transformation from "address" to "people."

Under China's existing regulatory framework, encrypted trading platforms and over-the-counter intermediaries do not exist in a "legal blind zone," but are instead clearly included in the regulation of real-name systems, anti-money laundering, and anti-fraud. Regulatory authorities have repeatedly required trading-related platforms to implement "know your customer" procedures, verify user identities, maintain transaction records, and strengthen monitoring of abnormal large amounts, frequent splits, and funds with characteristics highly overlapping with the information black market, and report suspicious transaction reports to competent authorities as required. If encrypted asset service-related entities allow or condone the operation of the personal information black market using their channels for settlement, they could face administrative penalties, business restrictions, or even be regarded as providing funding settlement, technical support, or traffic promotion for information network crimes, constituting the offense of assisting information network criminal activities. For industry participants, whether platforms, intermediaries, or individuals, "collection and payment" and "channel fees" are no longer neutral technical services in the information black market chain. In such a regulatory and judicial landscape, "invisible funds" are merely a technical illusion rather than a legal shield for evading responsibility.

Social Engineering Database Website and Group Managers: Where Lies Platform Responsibility?

In this case, the self-built "social engineering database" website and "boxing person" group were no longer just "tools" in the crime chain, but were recognized as the infrastructure for black market operations. The defendant illegally obtained over 900 million pieces of citizens' personal information and long-term stored over 170 million pieces of information query services in their self-built website; this technical implementation and page functions themselves constituted systemic organization and operation for the buying and selling and provision of personal information. The "Personal Information Protection Law" explicitly prohibits the illegal buying, selling, providing, or disclosure of citizens' personal information, setting higher responsibility thresholds for organizers and operators. Under these regulations, the social engineering database's site manager can no longer claim "I only provide a query system," but instead falls directly into the role of an illegal subject processing personal information.

Similarly, the "boxing person" group built using encrypted communication tools was viewed in the case as a unified scene and tool for organizing online violence. The group manager is not only responsible for maintaining group rules and screening members, but also actively discloses illegally obtained information to the group and guides "boxing." This changes their role from simply being a "group owner" to an organizer executing information disclosure and attacks against specific individuals. The "Cybersecurity Law" and "Data Security Law" require network operators to establish information security management systems and take technical measures to prevent data leakage and misuse. When the group itself is a carrier of illegal information dissemination and online violence, it's hard for group managers to argue as a "neutral platform." Moreover, in several typical cases, instant messaging platforms and community platforms have been subject to regulatory discussions or penalties for failing to effectively monitor and address "boxing" and personal information trading clues, resulting in continued tightening of platform boundaries. This means that, in addition to site managers and group owners, the upper-level platforms that host these groups and websites are also required to actively identify high-risk scenarios, promptly block access to social engineering database-like sites, dissolve "boxing person" groups, and cooperate with public security and judicial authorities in evidence collection and traceability upon discovering clues. After this typical case, any site manager and group owner operating social engineering databases or "boxing person" communities under the guise of "tool platforms" must reassess their legal coordinates.

From One Case to a Class of Cases: Three Red Lines the Encryption Industry Must Uphold

This typical case selected by the Supreme People's Court has made it very clear: once virtual currency is used as a tool for the buying and selling of citizens' personal information, operating social engineering databases, and organizing "boxing person" online violence, it is no longer "technically neutral" but directly steps into the criminal high-pressure zone of violating citizens' personal information. For encrypted platforms and project parties, there are at least three red lines that must be self-checked immediately: First, any scenario providing settlement, coordination, or channeling for personal information trading should be viewed as a high-risk business and should be directly terminated and retained for inspection once discovered; second, under the existing frameworks of Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law, fulfilling real-name system and identity verification obligations is no longer an "elective course." Deliberately evading or condoning high-risk fund flows anonymously may already touch administrative or even criminal liabilities; third, specialized risk control models and reporting mechanisms targeting information black markets and "boxing" online violence must be established. This includes monitoring abnormal addresses, suspect groups, and typical transaction patterns, and being traceable and cooperative when receiving police and judicial requests. It can be expected that in the future, regulatory and judicial authorities will classify "encrypted payment + personal information crimes" as long-term governance objects through more typical cases, industry inspections, and links to anti-fraud work. In such uncertainty, whoever can first embed compliance into product architecture and business processes is likely to retain their survival space in the next round of regulatory reshaping.

Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。