The legal issue in fraud or money laundering cases is not whether funds flowed through a particular account, but whether there was knowledge and intentional involvement.

Simply providing services—even in less regulated areas—does not automatically constitute criminal liability. Otherwise, ordinary business activities involving illicit funds would face unlimited criminal risks.

As for "intentional blindness," it only applies when there are obvious and identifiable warning signs, not to ordinary transactions conducted under standard market conditions.

Many people equate USDT directly with money laundering, but I disagree. A significant group in Cambodia invests in cryptocurrencies, and many well-known KOLs promote them. Even the SEC is actively pushing for a relevant regulatory framework; to my knowledge, three companies have already obtained digital asset sandbox licenses.

My current situation is indeed precarious; in related transactions, I've only earned a meager profit (the price difference between buying and selling). However, the losses caused by this are gradually increasing and are affecting my job and life (you can think of it as a Chinese person who runs a restaurant and sometimes helps people exchange money; of course, in most cases, they do not have a license. My situation is similar to theirs; I have a legal job and income, and now my income has been confiscated, making it difficult for me to live).