"The rise of crypto-crime" in academic literature: A critical criminal law analysis of statistical arguments and sources

This article examines the prevailing discourse in Russian criminal law doctrine concerning the "rise of cryptocrime," which exists in the absence of official statistics for offenses related to digital currency and digital financial assets. The study's objective is to analyze, through the works of scholars such as M.M. Dolgieva, O.N. Tisen, A.G. Volevodz, Ya.O. Kuchina, A.V. Arkhipov, I.S. Mochalkina, E.A. Ruskevich, I.I. Malygin, and others, the empirical foundations used to substantiate the thesis of rising crypto-crime and to assess their comparability. The analysis demonstrates that a significant portion of publications relies on evaluative statements ("rapid growth," "mass character," etc.) without disclosing underlying statistical data or accounting methodologies. Another group of studies cites financial intelligence data on "suspicious transactions" involving cryptocurrencies and global estimates of money laundering scale and criminal activity in digital currencies. Some authors utilize selected sets of court rulings; however, the lack of a unified methodology for selecting cases-by keywords, criminal offenses, or types of targeted assets-hinders the comparability of such research. Drawing on findings from independent reviews of judicial practice (by "RTM Group," "Moscow Digital School," and the law firm "EBR"), the article shows that while the number of cases involving digital currency is steadily increasing, their proportion within the broader landscape of IT-related crime remains relatively small. Consulting judicial statistics thus provides a more balanced perspective compared to publicistic portrayals of a near-total shift of criminal activity into the cryptocurrency sphere. The author concludes that there is methodological heterogeneity in the statistical arguments employed and highlights the risks of excessive criminalization when using aggregated indicators without accounting for the specific level of reality (transactions, suspicions, convictions) to which they pertain. The article justifies the necessity of introducing distinct reporting metrics within departmental statistics for crimes where digital currency serves as the object of an offense, a means of payment, or a tool for money laundering. It further advocates for grounding criminal law doctrine in verifiable empirical data rather than relying on a rhetorical narrative of a perpetually escalating threat. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References