Issues of criminal liability for organizing activities to attract funds in cryptocurrency

This article discusses the issues that arise for law enforcement officers in the qualification of crimes related to the turnover of cryptocurrencies, including cryptocurrency financial pyramids. The study aims to determine the range of measures to combat cryptocurrency financial pyramids. The empirical basis of the study was the data obtained as a result of the analysis and generalization of judicial and investigative practice in criminal cases related to financial pyramids in the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the research was the general dialectical method of scientific cognition, which has a universal character, as well as methods of logical deduction, induction, cognitive methods and techniques of observation, comparison, analysis, generalization and description. The author infers that there are mandatory signs of the objective side of crimes - public danger, causality and consequences of the analyzed crime. Due to the method of committing a crime, other optional signs of the objective side of the crime become uncertain, namely, the time, place and situation, which are blurred by the very nature of cryptocrimes. The construction of the objective side of the analyzed crime provides for responsibility for attracting funds or other property, which is not relevant for cryptocurrency today. According to the established practice, the timely withdrawal of the documentation of a financial pyramid, its black bookkeeping, is of particular importance; however, when using cryptocurrency, especially if it is created (generated) and listed by making anonymous transactions using information technology, it is impossible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the illegal receipt of such investments. The author states that the listed crimes are completed from the moment of the beginning of criminal actions. Before making any changes to domestic legislation concerning the attribution of cryptocurrencies to one of the objects of civil rights, or the establishment of an independent legislative regime for cryptocurrencies, it would be logical to qualify the analyzed activity for illegal attraction of cryptocurrencies under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a general norm, or under Article 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the presence of proven intent to steal someone else's property. The author substantiates the conclusion that the presence of an estimated cryptocurrency expert examination in a criminal case is mandatory, since cryptocurrencies have a rather volatile, unsecured exchange rate. In addition, in cases where victims cannot document the damage caused to them, or provide evidence of their purchase of cryptocurrency and its transfer to a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme, the damage should be assessed based on the average value of the cryptocurrency for the entire period of the crime.

Keywords

Authors

References