Recently, a message has been circulating in the Chinese internet and Web3 community claiming that police in places like Hangzhou and Chengdu are inspecting streets or visiting homes, and once they find a cryptocurrency app or assets in a wallet on a mobile phone, they will require a "forced transfer." This message has been rapidly amplified in the industry context at the end of the year, causing collective panic among many practitioners. Setting emotions aside, let's discuss legal principles. Under the current legal framework, the so-called "take coins on sight" and "forced transfers on the spot" are logically difficult to establish. The exercise of public power must adhere to the principle of lawful authority, and law enforcement actions require clear subjects, reasons, and procedures. Normal inspections are not equivalent to arbitrary searches, nor do they imply the right to check non-public applications on mobile phones or demand the transfer of personal assets. Forcing citizens to transfer virtual assets to an unknown address without filing a case, without a search warrant, and without seizure procedures not only violates procedures severely but may also place law enforcement personnel at risk of abuse of power and even criminal liability. In the current environment of increasingly strict law enforcement supervision, such high-risk behavior does not align with rational expectations of normal law enforcement.

It must be acknowledged that the end of the year is indeed a high-pressure period for managing fraud and gambling funds, and regulatory tightening is a real phenomenon. However, tightening does not equate to overstepping boundaries, let alone indiscriminate crackdowns on the entire industry. What truly needs vigilance are procedural flaws or inducement-style law enforcement that may occur in individual cases. Therefore, rather than being intimidated by rumors, practitioners would be better off establishing a clear awareness of legal boundaries in advance.

Once extreme situations do arise, staying calm is more important than any reaction. Verifying the identity of law enforcement personnel, refusing unwarranted inspection or transfer requests, only accepting standard public seizure procedures, and asserting rights through legal avenues immediately afterward are rational and effective responses. A reality in the on-chain world is that all transfers leave indelible traces, which is both a risk and a foundational evidence for protecting one's rights. Panic will not solve problems; understanding the rules is the true source of security in the industry.