Background
Voice phishing offenders often have victims send money to cryptocurrency exchange accounts, then convert it into coins and move it out. Once such reports are filed, the exchange's accounts are frozen, and as reports accumulate even legitimate funds are tied up and the business suffers. Changchun represented an exchange in exactly that position.
What Was at Stake
There were two issues: whether the payment suspension could be lifted as to proceeds already withdrawn, and whether the victims' argument that "the exchange bears some responsibility for the proceeds being withdrawn" would be accepted.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun proved that the proceeds had already been withdrawn and pursued an action to lift the payment suspension (confirmation of the non-existence of the debt), and as to the victims' counterclaim made a concrete showing that the exchange had performed all of its obligations under its terms of use and was not negligent.
The court found for the exchange on both the claim and the counterclaim. The case shows that even where an exchange is used in a voice phishing offense, responsibility cannot be imposed on an exchange that has met its obligations. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)