Criminal policies on confiscation of cryptocurrency in Russia, the EU, and the US

In this article, we carry out a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrency confiscation in Russia, the European Union, and the United States. The relevance of this research is determined by the rapid growth of crimes involving crypto assets (money laundering, cybercrimes, and drug trafficking) and the lack of effective mechanisms for their final confiscation and implementation in Russia, which undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies. We aim to identify effective models of cryptocurrency confiscation based on a comparative analysis of legislation and practice in leading jurisdictions and, on this basis, to develop recommendations for improving the Russian legal framework. The methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of regulatory acts (Russian Criminal Procedure Code, EU Directive 2014/42/EU, US Code), a formal legal method, an analysis of judicial practice (Russia, USA), and doctrinal sources. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the USA enjoys the most advanced system, where the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) actively uses private exchanges to convert confiscated assets; (2) the EU has established a strong legal framework (5/6AMLD, Directive 2014/42/EU); however, implementation practices here vary among member states, combining government-owned storage and outsourced sales through licensed platforms; (3) in the Russian Federation, despite the practice of seizure and arrest of crypto assets and legislative initiatives, the legal mechanism for their confiscation and sale is lacking, making court decisions unenforceable. In order to overcome this gap in Russia, it is necessary to urgently legislate cryptocurrency as property for the purposes of confiscation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grant the Federal Service for Judicial Enforcement of the Russian Federation the authority to sell through licensed platforms, as well as to develop expert potential. Our study extends the current knowledge by detailing the technological aspects of confiscation in the EU and the USA and proposes specific ways to modernize the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

1. Aryamov, A. A. (2025). Mezhdunarodnoye ugolovnoye pravo: sovremennyy vzglyad: kurs lektsiy [International criminal law: Collection of lectures], Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet Pravosudiya.

2. Endol’tseva, A. V., Endol’tseva, Yu. V., & Platonova, N. I. (2019). Bazovyye nachala ugolovnoy politiki: ot teoreticheskikh rassuzhdeniy k de lege ferenda [Basics of criminal policy: From theoretical discourse to de lege ferenda]. Russian Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 641–650. https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2019.13(4).641-650

3. Dolgieva, M. M. (2023a). Teoreticheskiye osnovaniya ugolovnoy politiki v sfere oborota kriptovalyuty [Theoretical foundations of criminal policy in the sphere of cryptocurrency trading] [Dr. Sci. dissertation, MGIMO University]. https://mgimo.ru/upload/diss/2023/dolgieva-diss.pdf

4. Dolgieva, M. M. (2023b). Soblyudeniye balansa chastnykh i publichnykh interesov v oblasti konfiskatsii tsifrovykh aktivov na primere SSHA [Maintaining a balance of private and public interests in the field of digital assets confiscation: The United States case]. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 18(6), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2023.151.6.134-141

5. Fijnaut, C. (2017). Criminology and the criminal justice system: A historical and transatlantic introduction. Intersentia. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780686059

6. Kunev, D. A. (2021). Vozvrat iz-za rubezha prestupnykh aktivov: teoriya i praktika [Criminal asset recovery from abroad: Theory and practice] (A. G. Volevodz, Ed.). Prometey.

7. Keiler, J., & Klip, A. (2021). The sentence is only the beginning: Hiccups in the cross-border execution of judgments in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 29(3–4), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10016