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 recognize input from anyone conversant in UAE banking privateness, AML laws, worldwide cooperation, or cybercrime investigations.
Right here is the state of affairs:
A number of months in the past, I placed a P2P advertisement on a crypto platform resembling Bitget stating that I used to be trying to purchase USDT.
A vendor 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 completed by way of the platform, the USDT was released, 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 advised that the individual I had traded with was allegedly concerned in a fraud in India.
The allegation appears to be that he had beforehand gained someone’s belief by providing returns on an investment association, subsequently acquired a considerably bigger quantity from that individual, after which disappeared. In accordance with what I have been advised, he allegedly converted or moved some of these funds by way of P2P USDT transactions involving UAE consumers.
Apparently, he carried out many P2P transactions with round 40+ totally different consumers and roughly 90+ promote orders.
The essential level is that, in accordance with the consumers, none of them knew the seller was allegedly concerned in a fraud. They have been simply purchasing 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 provide a purchaser’s banking info to Indian Cyber Crime Police merely as a result of that individual acquired/transferred cash in a P2P USDT transaction with an alleged fraudster?
Would India normally have to make a formal request via the suitable international legal-assistance/cooperation mechanism, or can an Indian police station immediately acquire UAE bank 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 fact that a purchaser had no information of the underlying fraud and bought USDT via a traditional P2P transaction make a distinction to how the customer is handled?
If the customer’s UAE checking account was used solely to pay for USDT, with no connection to the unique Indian victim, would that transaction itself establish any legal involvement?
How do UAE banks usually deal with such requests beneath banking confidentiality, AML/KYC and international information-sharing guidelines?
Would investigators usually want to determine a connection between a specific buyer and the alleged felony proceeds earlier than requesting that buyer’s banking info, or can a broad request masking everyone who traded with the individual be made?
If someone genuinely bought USDT in good religion, has transaction data, platform KYC info, order IDs, cost proof and chat history, what documentation would normally be useful to exhibit the supply and function of the transaction?
I’m not asking whether or not the alleged fraudster is responsible or whether or not any specific investigation is justified. I’m particularly making an attempt to know how cross-border investigations work when an innocent P2P buyer unknowingly trades with somebody whose funds are later alleged to be related to fraud.
If anybody here has actual experience with UAE banks, AML investigations, Indian cybercrime investigations, MLAT/worldwide cooperation, or crypto P2P investigations, I’d respect factual info or examples.
Please avoid speculation or authorized recommendation based mostly solely on assumptions. I’m notably occupied with how this works legally and procedurally, somewhat than whether or not someone thinks the transaction “appears suspicious.”