Last November, the Shanghai Higher People's Court made an important statement: individuals purely holding virtual currencies are not illegal, but commercial entities are prohibited from participating in virtual currency investment and issuance.

At first glance, it seems like good news, but a closer look reveals a key issue—"not constituting a crime" ≠ "not illegal." These two concepts are vastly different.

Many people tend to confuse them. Crime is the most serious legal consequence, meaning imprisonment, a criminal record, difficulty finding employment, and family suffering as well. But what about illegal activities? That's another matter. Civil and administrative liabilities may follow, and penalties like administrative detention and fines are entirely within the scope—just not at the level of a crime.

Therefore, when the Shanghai Higher People's Court says it does not constitute a crime, it actually indicates that personal trading of coins might be illegal but not to the extent of a crime. From this perspective, regulation has actually become stricter.

This is why caution is necessary. Although the Shanghai Higher People's Court is a high-level court, higher than the Intermediate Court, to truly become the final ruling, it needs endorsement from a higher judicial authority or supporting guiding judicial cases. Otherwise, this statement remains shrouded in uncertainty.

If there is no more authoritative voice or similar case rulings to follow up, how should we interpret this more reliably? I tend to think this is a reinforcement of regulatory stance. Instead of holding onto luck, it’s better to keep observing. After all, policies are always in flux—don't expect too much, to avoid disappointment in the end.

The most prudent approach now is to wait and see whether higher-level departments will issue further clarifications or accumulate enough judicial precedents to resolve this issue. Until then, staying alert is more practical than blind optimism.