In criminal cases involving cryptocurrencies, claiming "unawareness" does not automatically exempt individuals from liability. Legal assessments focus on whether objective actions suggest "subjective awareness," rather than relying solely on verbal defenses. Indicators such as unusually high returns, evasion of KYC protocols, frequent card changes, or the use of encrypted communication tools may imply that one "should have known." Only when it can be demonstrated that reasonable diligence was exercised, or if deception is evident, can "unawareness" potentially be a valid defense. The key takeaway is that compliance before the fact, rather than post-incident excuses, determines exemption.