Can Innocent UAE P2P Buyers Be Investigated Just for Trading With an Alleged Fraudster?

I’m making an attempt to know a state of affairs involving a UAE-based P2P USDT transaction and would actually respect enter from anybody acquainted with UAE banking privateness, AML laws, worldwide cooperation, or cybercrime investigations.
Right here is the state of affairs:
A couple of months ago, I positioned a P2P advertisement on a crypto platform corresponding to Bitget stating that I was trying to purchase USDT.
A seller accepted my order. His profile was UAE KYC-verified, and the bank account from which I acquired/paid the transaction was apparently in his own identify. There was no third-party checking account involved.
The transaction was accomplished via the platform, the USDT was launched, and the vendor had a fairly good trading historical past/score. From the customer’s perspective, there was nothing obviously suspicious concerning the transaction.
Several months later, I was contacted by an Indian Cyber Crime Police Station and informed that the individual I had traded with was allegedly involved in a fraud in India.
The allegation appears to be that he had previously gained someone’s trust by providing returns on an funding association, subsequently acquired a considerably bigger quantity from that individual, after which disappeared. In response to what I've been advised, he allegedly transformed or moved a few of those funds by means of P2P USDT transactions involving UAE consumers.
Apparently, he carried out many P2P transactions with round 40+ totally different consumers and roughly 90+ sell orders.
The essential level is that, in response to the consumers, none of them knew the seller was allegedly involved in a fraud. They have been merely buying USDT by means of a regulated/established P2P platform from a seller whose profile had accomplished KYC and whose cost account appeared to belong to him.
My questions
Can UAE banks present a buyer’s banking info to Indian Cyber Crime Police merely as a result of that individual acquired/transferred money in a P2P USDT transaction with an alleged fraudster?
Would India normally have to make a formal request by way of the appropriate worldwide legal-assistance/cooperation mechanism, or can an Indian police station immediately acquire UAE financial institution data?
If investigators determine 40–50 UAE consumers who traded with the alleged fraudster, can they request financial institution statements/account info for all these consumers simply because they transacted with him?
Does the truth that a purchaser had no information of the underlying fraud and bought USDT by means of a traditional P2P transaction make a difference to how the customer is treated?
If the customer’s UAE checking account was used only to pay for USDT, with no connection to the original Indian sufferer, would that transaction itself establish any legal involvement?
How do UAE banks usually handle such requests beneath banking confidentiality, AML/KYC and worldwide information-sharing guidelines?
Would investigators usually need to determine a connection between a specific buyer and the alleged legal proceeds earlier than requesting that buyer’s banking info, or can a broad request overlaying everybody who traded with the individual be made?
If somebody genuinely purchased USDT in good faith, has transaction data, platform KYC info, order IDs, cost proof and chat history, what documentation would usually be useful to exhibit the source and function of the transaction?
I’m not asking whether or not the alleged fraudster is guilty or whether or not any specific investigation is justified. I’m specifically making an attempt to know how cross-border investigations work when an innocent P2P buyer unknowingly trades with someone whose funds are later alleged to be related to fraud.
If anybody right here has actual expertise with UAE banks, AML investigations, Indian cybercrime investigations, MLAT/international cooperation, or crypto P2P investigations, I’d recognize factual info or examples.
Please keep away from hypothesis or legal advice based mostly solely on assumptions. I’m notably excited about how this works legally and procedurally, moderately than whether or not somebody thinks the transaction “appears suspicious.”