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 anyone acquainted with UAE banking privacy, AML laws, international cooperation, or cybercrime investigations.
Here is the state of affairs:
A couple of months in the past, I placed a P2P advertisement on a crypto platform reminiscent of Bitget stating that I used to be trying to buy 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 personal identify. There was no third-party checking account involved.
The transaction was completed via the platform, the USDT was released, and the seller had a reasonably good buying and selling 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 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 offering returns on an investment association, subsequently acquired a substantially larger quantity from that individual, and then disappeared. In accordance with what I've been advised, he allegedly converted or moved some of these funds by means of P2P USDT transactions involving UAE consumers.
Apparently, he carried out many P2P transactions with around 40+ totally different consumers and roughly 90+ sell orders.
The essential point is that, in response to the consumers, none of them knew the seller was allegedly involved 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 buyer’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 by means of the suitable international legal-assistance/cooperation mechanism, or can an Indian police station instantly get hold of 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 those consumers simply because they transacted with him?
Does the fact that a buyer had no information of the underlying fraud and purchased USDT by way of a traditional P2P transaction make a difference to how the customer is treated?
If the customer’s UAE bank account was used solely to pay for USDT, with no connection to the original Indian sufferer, would that transaction itself set up any legal involvement?
How do UAE banks usually handle such requests beneath banking confidentiality, AML/KYC and worldwide information-sharing rules?
Would investigators usually want to determine a connection between a specific purchaser and the alleged felony proceeds earlier than requesting that buyer’s banking info, or can a broad request overlaying everybody 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 normally be helpful to reveal the source and objective of the transaction?
I’m not asking whether 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 purchaser unknowingly trades with someone whose funds are later alleged to be related to fraud.
If anybody here has precise experience with UAE banks, AML investigations, Indian cybercrime investigations, MLAT/international cooperation, or crypto P2P investigations, I’d respect factual info or examples.
Please avoid hypothesis or legal recommendation based mostly solely on assumptions. I’m notably fascinated about how this works legally and procedurally, slightly than whether or not somebody thinks the transaction “seems suspicious.”