{"id":53661,"date":"2026-06-04T12:09:06","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T04:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/?p=53661"},"modified":"2026-06-04T12:09:30","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T04:09:30","slug":"%e4%b8%8a%e6%b5%b7token%e4%b8%ad%e8%bd%ac%e7%ab%99%e7%ab%99%e9%95%bf%e8%a2%ab%e6%8a%93%ef%bc%8c%e9%9d%9e%e6%b3%95%e7%bb%8f%e8%90%a5%e7%bd%aa%e7%9a%84%e8%be%a9%e6%8a%a4%e7%a9%ba%e9%97%b4%e6%9c%89","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/53661.html","title":{"rendered":"What is the space for the defence of the crime of illegal dealing when the Chief of Token Transit Station in Shanghai is arrested"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN RECENT DAYS, THE INTERNET HAS BEEN FLOWING OUT OF SHANGHAI TO AN AI.\"API<\/a>Transit station<\/a>\u201cTHE CHIEF OF STATION WAS DETAINED FOR 37 DAYS IN CRIMINAL CUSTODY ON SUSPICION OF SELLING OFFSHORE AI INTERFACE RESOURCES, WHICH WAS CHANGED TO BAIL PENDING TRIAL, AND THE CASE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. AS SOON AS NEWS EMERGED, A LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR PLATFORMS WERE SHUT DOWN AND MOVED, AND THE WHOLE INDUSTRY WAS BOOMING\u3002<\/p>\n

\"a9ac1a6j00tg3a5r006pd000v9000hkp\"<\/p>\n

There are rumours that this case may be going onOffence of illicit dealing<\/strong>In the case of prosecution, what is the space for defence that can be sought<\/p>\n

What's the business at the stop<\/strong><\/p>\n

A brief description of the operational modalities of such platforms. Because major mainstream models like OpenAI and Claude have regional limitations on mainland China, domestic developers need some thresholds for direct access to their API. So someone saw the need:<\/p>\n

Typical mode of operation<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong>Access, at low cost, to the interface resources of large models abroad by means of bulk registration accounts, free amounts and even reverse crawling<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong>A reverse agent on an overseas server to enable domestic users to access without going over walls<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong>The ability to call is then sold in packages, such as \u201c1 dollar for millions of Token\u201d to earn the difference and service fees\u3002<\/p>\n

However, some are far more excessive, falsely watered, misrepresenting Token consumption, impersonating models with poor models, and even selling user data for dialogue\u3002<\/p>\n

This model is clearly on the red line of law in our country. If criminal responsibility is to be pursued, two charges are often brought in practice:Offence of illicit dealing<\/strong>The other one is..Provision of computer information system tools<\/strong>I don't know. The sentences for the two counts are very different and the defence strategy is very different. Let's start with the crime of illegal dealing and see how many stitches this wall can break\u3002<\/p>\n

The logic of the prosecution sounds smooth, but every step of the way can be relaxed<\/strong><\/p>\n

If the offence of illicit dealing is prosecuted, the prosecution ' s general approach is as follows:<\/p>\n

PROVISION OF AI INTERFACE ACCESS TO DOMESTIC USERS ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS, UNDER THE CATEGORY \u201cINFORMATION SERVICES\u201dValue-added telecommunications operations<\/strong>;<\/p>\n

VAT operations require a VAT operating licence<\/p>\n

No permit, thenViolations of national regulations<\/strong>;<\/p>\n

Disruption of telecommunication market order, with a relatively large amount of money and compositionOffence of illicit dealing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This chain looks at the rings, but there's room for doubt at every link\u3002<\/p>\n

Five defense gaps, one by one<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sew one<\/strong><\/p>\n

Are \u201cnational regulations\u201d really \u201cnational regulations\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The offence of illegal dealing must be \u201cin violation of the provisions of the State\u201d. Article 96 of the Penal Code makes it quite clear that this \u201cState regulation\u201d can only beLaws of the National People ' s Congress and its Standing Committee, or administrative regulations, decisions, orders of the State Council<\/strong>I don't know. Sector regulations and local regulations cannot be counted\u3002<\/p>\n

Zhou Zaiwei's oil sales<\/strong>:: Sale of diesel gasoline without a licence for the production of oil, prosecuted for illegal business. The court finally found that it was only part of the Ministry of Commerce that had violated itSectoral regulations<\/strong>) does not meet the preconditions of the offence of illegal dealing and does not constitute an offence\u3002<\/p>\n

Reference cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

IN THE CASE OF THE AI TRANSIT STATION, THE PROSECUTION IS LIKELY TO USE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE. THIS REGULATION IS INDEED AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION, SUFFICIENT FOR \u201cNATIONAL REGULATION\u201d. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE REGULATION WAS BORN WITHOUT EVEN A SMARTPHONE, LET ALONE AN AI-SIZE MODEL. THE TYPE OF VALUE-ADDED TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS LISTED IN ITTHERE'S NO \"AI LARGE MODEL API AGENT.\"<\/strong>I don't know. Defence counsel may well argue that there is no explicit prohibition in this regulation for such new business\u3002<\/p>\n

If the prosecution is based only on the Ministry's Licensing Scheme for Telecommunications Operations (Sector Regulation), it would be simpler to refer directly to article 96 of the Penal Code, which is not sufficiently hierarchical to serve as a basis for conviction\u3002<\/p>\n

AI INTERFACE AGENT, IS IT REALLY VALUE ADDED TELECOMMUNICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

EVEN IF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS WERE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS \u201cNATIONAL\u201d, WE HAVE TO ASK WHETHER THE AI INTERFACE AGENT IS A VALUE-ADDED TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPERATION<\/p>\n

THE PROSECUTION USUALLY RELIES ON \u201cINTERNET DATA CENTRE OPERATIONS\u201d OR \u201cCONTENT DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OPERATIONS\u201d. BUT THINK ABOUT IT, THE CORE OF THE AI TRANSIT STATION IS TO BUY, PACK, SWITCH, AND EARN A SERVICE FEE FOR THE TECHNICAL SKILLS OF THE OFFSHORE AI SERVICES, WHICH IS MORE LIKE, IN ESSENCE\u201cTechnic two-track dealer\u201d or \u201cSaaS polymer\u201d<\/strong>Instead of operating a basic telecommunications network. It has a considerable distance from the \u201ccommunication pipeline\u201d of traditional telecommunications operations\u3002<\/p>\n

There's one more thing that can be confused:AI TRANSIT STATION \u2260 VPN<\/strong><\/em>I DON'T KNOW. THE CORE VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL VPN IS THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONSEstablishment of an international channel and provision of a universal wallbreaking service<\/strong>I DON'T KNOW. AI TRANSIT STATIONS, ON THE OTHER HAND, USUALLY TRANSMIT ONLY SELECTED AI INTERFACES AND DO NOT PROVIDE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO OFFSHORE NETWORKS. THE TWO BUSINESS PATTERNS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT AND CANNOT BE DIRECTLY TRANSPOSED TO THE VPN CONVICTION LOGIC\u3002<\/p>\n

AND SO FAR, THERE IS NO \"AI API RESALE LICENSE\" IN OUR COUNTRY. ANY INTERNET API MIDDLE LEVEL SERVICE IS DEFINED AS VALUE-ADDED TELECOMMUNICATIONSPrinciple of clarity of criminal law<\/strong>Not really\u3002<\/p>\n

Sew three<\/strong><\/p>\n

I can't put anything in there<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE ARTICLE OF THE LAW MOST LIKELY TO BE USED TO CONVICT THE AI TRANSIT STATION IS ARTICLE 225 (4) OF THE PENAL CODE: \u201cOTHER ILLEGAL ACTS WHICH SERIOUSLY DISTURB THE ORDER OF THE MARKET\u201d. IT'S TYPICALBottom Clause<\/strong>It is also the source of the suspicion that the crime was \u201cpocked\u201d\u3002<\/p>\n

The acquisition of corn without a license by Wang Lijun<\/strong>One farmer resold corn without a warrant and was sentenced at first instance. After the Supreme People's Court ordered a retrialAcquitted<\/strong>I don't know. Reason: Although administrative regulations have been violated, they \u201chave not yet reached the level of serious disruption of the market order and are not comparable to the social harm associated with the offence of illegal dealing\u201d\u3002<\/p>\n

:: Supreme Law Guidance Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

This establishes a principle: the application of the bottom-up clause depends on\u201cIs there a clear judicial interpretation\u201d<\/strong>(Formal requirements)\"Is it similar to the acts listed above?\"<\/strong>(Substantive requirements)\u3002<\/p>\n

NONE OF THE EXISTING JUDICIAL EXPLANATIONS WAS EXPLICITLY INCLUDED IN THE \u201cAAI LARGE MODEL API AGENT\u201d. AND ITS SOCIAL HAZARDS ARE PROBABLY FAR FROM THE LEVEL OF TOBACCO, MEDICINE AND FINANCE. THE AI TRANSIT STATION MEETS PRECISELY THE NEED FOR DOMESTIC DEVELOPERS NOT TO USE THE BLANKS OF CERTAIN AI FUNCTIONS, BUT TO LOWER THE TECHNOLOGY THRESHOLD. WHAT IS THE MARKET ORDER THAT IT \u201cDISTURBED\u201d? ALL OF THIS REQUIRES EVIDENCE FROM THE PROSECUTION\u3002<\/p>\n

Sew four<\/strong><\/p>\n

It's not that serious<\/strong><\/p>\n

The crime of illegal dealing isPredator<\/strong>IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS AN OFFENCE, IT MUST BE \u201cSERIOUS\u201d. HOWEVER, THE AI TRANSIT STATION IS NEW AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ITS \u201cGRAVITY\u201d THRESHOLD\u3002<\/p>\n

At this point, you'll have to be more nuanced\u3002\u201cIllicitly operating amounts\u201d and \u201cIrregular proceeds\u201d are two different things<\/strong>I DON'T KNOW. THE PROCEEDS OF THE OFFENCE MUST BE NET PROFITS AFTER DEDUCTION OF DIRECT REASONABLE EXPENSES. THE COST OF BUYING THE API INTERFACE FROM ABROAD, RENTING THE SERVERS, BANDWIDTH AND LABOUR COSTS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED. THE FLOW OF USER-VALUE WATER MUST NOT BE TREATED DIRECTLY AS THE PROCEEDS OF AN OFFENCE\u3002<\/p>\n

There's another legal principle\"From old to light\"<\/strong>I don't know. There has been a precedent in which a case at first instance is sufficient to meet the old criteria, and the new judicial interpretation during the second trial has raised the threshold of admission, resulting in a court of law directly changing the acquittal. If there is a new change in the relevant criteria during the trial, it will be taken at the first opportunity\u3002<\/p>\n

IN ADDITION, IF THE STATION CHIEF ' S RESOURCES INCLUDE AN API QUOTA THAT IS FORMALLY PURCHASED, THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO NORMAL RESALE, NOT ILLEGAL ACQUISITION. IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT, THIS PART MUST BE EXCLUDED. ONLY FREE, REVERSE CLIMBS ARE THE REAL SOURCES OF VIOLATIONS\u3002<\/p>\n

Sew five<\/strong><\/p>\n

He probably didn't feel guilty<\/strong><\/p>\n

The crime of illegal dealing is typicalStatutory offences<\/strong>I DON'T KNOW. IT IS NOT AS NATURAL AND MORALLY OFFENSIVE AS IT IS INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED, AND THE ILLEGALITY DERIVES ENTIRELY FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. WITH REGARD TO THE NEW BUSINESS THAT HAS EMERGED IN RECENT YEARS AS AI TRANSITS, WITH VAGUE INDUSTRY RULES AND UNCLEAR REGULATORY BOUNDARIES, MANY STATION CHIEFS MAY FEEL THAT THEY ARE DOING TECHNICAL SERVICESI didn't realize I could have broken the law<\/strong>I don't know. The absence or weakness of this \u201ccriminality perception\u201d is also an important subjective ground in the legal defence of the offender\u3002<\/p>\n

If the station commander had been operating in public, using his real identity and contact, and had not been hiding, it would have shown that he had no subjective knowledge of the offence. Compared to the black-and-shell production of lot numbers, deciphering interfaces and re-selling data, there is also a marked difference in subjectivity. This can vary in terms of both conviction and sentencing\u3002<\/p>\n

In addition to hardcore, there's a way to save the country<\/strong><\/p>\n

In judicial practice, many courts are in fact more inclined to find another charge in relation to the overturning agents and the transmission of such acts through the interface -Provision of procedures for intrusion, illegal control of computer information systems, instrumentalities offences<\/strong>(Article 285, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code)\u3002<\/p>\n

Why is this charge better for the client? Look at the comparison of sentences:<\/p>\n

Current allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Offence of illicit dealing<\/strong><\/p>\n

SeriousFive years<\/strong>Particularly serious5-15 years<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u266a For application \u266a<\/strong><\/p>\n

Provision of computer information system tools<\/strong><\/p>\n

SeriousThree years<\/strong>Particularly serious3-7 years<\/strong><\/p>\n

Maximum penalty15 years down to 7 years<\/strong>The gap is huge. If the technical means of the defendant do meet the requirements of the offence (e.g. the geographical limits of the construction of a counter-advertising agent to a service provider outside transit, they can be regarded as providing an \u201cintrusive\u201d instrument). When the situation is extremely disadvantaged, the minor offence may be claimed\u3002<\/p>\n

VPN ET AL<\/strong>THE COURT EVENTUALLY CONVICTED THE PROVISION OF A COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEM TOOL BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL BUSINESS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA. EVEN THE TRADITIONAL VPN DOES THAT, NOT TO MENTION THE AI TRANSIT STATION<\/p>\n

Reference cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

But if the perpetrator's actions are merely \u201cformally bought and resold\u201d, and there is no technical means of circumventing the restrictions, there are serious questions as to whether the minor offence constitutes a crime that is completely historicalNot guilty<\/strong>Go in the direction\u3002<\/p>\n

It's a procedural braid<\/strong><\/p>\n

Entities are spears, procedures are shields. In the Shanghai case, the fact that a person was detained for 37 days on bail pending trial is in itself an indication of the risk that the investigative authorities may not find the available evidence hard enough to meet the \u201cpossible sentence of imprisonment above\u201d required by the arrest. It's a defenseWeak evidence<\/strong>The indirect basis\u3002<\/p>\n

In the investigation phase, we need to step in. FocusThe forensics of electronic data is illegal<\/strong>I don't know. Transaction records, server logs, user-charge records, all of which are electronic evidence. Did the extraction process follow the rules? Was the defendant's statement voluntary? Are you tired of questioning? Thirty-seven days of detention, such cases in particular need to be carefully verified\u3002<\/p>\n

New technologies and old criminal law, where are the borders<\/strong><\/p>\n

I'M NOT SURE I CAN DO THATCombination<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

First floor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Defence of innocence<\/strong>: There is doubt about the characterization of the bite business, the norm cited is not \u201cnational regulation\u201d, the amount is not up to standard and the order is not disturbed\u3002<\/p>\n

Second floor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Light plea<\/strong>(b) Minor offences for which the maximum penalty is sought for a period of only seven years (procedures for intrusion, illegal control of computer information systems, instrumental offences), with a reduction in the amount of the proceeds of the offence\u3002<\/p>\n

Third floor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Defence of sentencing<\/strong>(C) PLEADINGS OF GUILTY PLEAS, REFUNDS OF DAMAGES, FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS, CESSATION OF CONDUCT, SHORT-TERM OPERATION, AND LIMITED SOCIAL HARM, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POLICY CONTEXT IN WHICH THE STATE IS NOW STRONGLY ENCOURAGING THE AI INDUSTRY TO SEEK SUSPENDED SENTENCES OR EVEN PARDON\u3002<\/p>\n

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE A.I.T. CASE, YESNew business collisions with old law<\/strong>I don't know. The absence of license plates \u201cnever natural amounts to \u201cillegal business\u201d. Where the boundaries of criminal law should be drawn is the most fundamental issue in this confrontation\u3002<\/p>\n

This paper is intended for study studies only and does not constitute a case-specific legal opinion\u3002<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In recent days, the Director of the \"AI\" API Transit Station in Shanghai has been detained for 37 days in criminal custody on suspicion of selling offshore AI interface resources and has since been placed on bail and the case is still under investigation. As soon as news emerged, a large number of similar platforms were shut down and moved, and the whole industry was booming. At present, there are rumours that the case may be prosecuted for illegal dealing, so what is the space for defence? What's the business at the stop? A brief description of the operational modalities of such platforms. Because major mainstream models like OpenAI and Claude have regional limitations on mainland China, domestic developers need some thresholds for direct access to their API. And so someone saw the need:<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[148,146],"tags":[1033,1270,8405],"collection":[],"class_list":["post-53661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-headline","category-news","tag-api","tag-token","tag-8405"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53661\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53661"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=53661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}