In criminal cases involving virtual currencies, many defendants often repeat the same defense: "I didn't know anything; someone else was operating." But can the court accept this explanation? The answer is often disappointing.

Judicial authorities determine whether you had subjective knowledge not by what you say, but by what you do. In other words, your objective actions speak for themselves.

For example, obviously unreasonable high-yield promises should alert ordinary people that there is a problem. If you willingly pour money into it, with transfer records, chat logs, and transaction flows all clearly documented, claiming "I really didn't know" sounds very weak. The judge will ask: With such obvious risk signals, how could you not see them?

Another common approach is actively avoiding regulation. For instance, using multiple accounts, hiding fund flows, splitting transaction amounts—these actions themselves send a signal to the court that you are guilty of being suspicious. Normal, legal transactions don't require such tricks. Every step you take to evade detection only strengthens the accusation of "subjective knowledge."

What’s more heartbreaking is that participants may not even understand what they are truly involved in. Some think they are just doing multi-level marketing, only to find out it’s a Ponzi scheme. Others hear they can make money and join without fully understanding the logical chain. But even so, once the legal threshold of "should have known" is reached, you cannot escape.

So don’t rely on the phrase "I didn't know" as a shield. The law looks at your behavioral patterns, transaction characteristics, and risk awareness. Every move you make is testifying against you in court—and quite possibly providing a negative testimony. To genuinely avoid risks, you must be cautious from the very beginning, rather than shifting blame after the fact.