The term “money muling” typically refers to the intermediary transfer of illicit funds in telecom fraud. While such activities may appear similar on the surface, they correspond to distinct criminal offenses. This study examines the boundary of culpability among the crimes of providing assistance in information network criminal activities, joint fraud, and concealing or disguising criminal proceeds, focusing on acts involving account provision, fund transfers, and currency conversions. Employing normative analysis and comparative case studies, and drawing on judicial documents and domestic and international scholarship, the research finds that transaction volumes must be assessed in conjunction with evidence of account control and source of instructions to support a proper determination of conduct. The degree of participation should be evaluated based on the conduct’s facilitative effect on upstream crimes and the nature of collaboration, rather than through a mechanical escalation of charges. Subjective intent must be examined separately with respect to general awareness of cybercrime, basic facts of fraud, and the specific nature of the funds as criminal proceeds, while also accounting for exculpatory evidence. A coherent adjudicative framework emerges from the integration of factual reconstruction, offering guidance for the attribution of liability in similar cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xuanyu Zhou (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: