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 input from anybody accustomed to UAE banking privacy, AML laws, international cooperation, or cybercrime investigations.
Here is the state of affairs:
A number of months ago, I positioned a P2P advertisement on a crypto platform corresponding to Bitget stating that I was trying to purchase USDT.
A vendor accepted my order. His profile was UAE KYC-verified, and the checking account from which I acquired/paid the transaction was apparently in his personal identify. There was no third-party checking account concerned.
The transaction was completed by means of the platform, the USDT was released, and the seller had a reasonably good trading history/score. From the customer’s perspective, there was nothing clearly suspicious concerning the transaction.
A number of months later, I used to be contacted by an Indian Cyber Crime Police Station and advised that the individual I had traded with was allegedly involved in a fraud in India.
The allegation appears to be that he had beforehand gained somebody’s trust by providing returns on an funding arrangement, subsequently acquired a considerably larger quantity from that individual, after which disappeared. Based on what I have been advised, he allegedly converted or moved a few 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 approximately 90+ promote orders.
The necessary level is that, in response to the consumers, none of them knew the seller was allegedly concerned in a fraud. They have been merely buying USDT by way of a regulated/established P2P platform from a vendor 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 because that individual acquired/transferred money 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 financial institution data?
If investigators determine 40–50 UAE consumers who traded with the alleged fraudster, can they request bank statements/account info for all those consumers simply because they transacted with him?
Does the fact that a buyer had no information of the underlying fraud and bought USDT by way of a traditional P2P transaction make a distinction to how the customer is handled?
If the customer’s UAE checking account was used only to pay for USDT, with no connection to the unique Indian victim, would that transaction itself set up any felony involvement?
How do UAE banks usually deal with such requests underneath banking confidentiality, AML/KYC and international information-sharing rules?
Would investigators usually want to determine a connection between a specific purchaser and the alleged felony proceeds before requesting that buyer’s banking info, or can a broad request overlaying everyone who traded with the individual be made?
If someone genuinely purchased USDT in good religion, has transaction data, platform KYC info, order IDs, cost proof and chat history, what documentation would usually be useful to show the supply and function of the transaction?
I’m not asking whether or not the alleged fraudster is guilty or whether any specific investigation is justified. I’m particularly making an attempt to know how cross-border investigations work when an innocent P2P purchaser unknowingly trades with somebody whose funds are later alleged to be related to fraud.
If anyone right here has precise expertise with UAE banks, AML investigations, Indian cybercrime investigations, MLAT/international cooperation, or crypto P2P investigations, I’d respect factual info or examples.
Please keep away from hypothesis or legal advice based mostly solely on assumptions. I’m notably serious about how this works legally and procedurally, fairly than whether or not somebody thinks the transaction “seems to be suspicious.”