Criminal-law challenges of digital assets in the modern legal order

Introduction: the digital economy as a new field of criminal law

The development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology is one of the most significant technological changes of our time. However, alongside innovation in the financial system, new forms of crime are emerging which, by their structure, method of commission and evidence, belong to the domain of high-tech crime.

Cryptocurrencies are not illegal in themselves. Yet their technical features, namely decentralisation, speed of transfer and the absence of traditional intermediaries, make them a convenient means of committing certain criminal offences.

The concept of high-tech crime

High-tech crime covers criminal offences in which:

• information and communication technologies are used as a means of commission,
• information systems are the object of the attack,
• the digital space is the primary environment of the criminal activity.

In this sense, cryptocurrencies do not appear as a separate form of crime, but as an instrument within existing criminal offences, above all those in the field of financial and organised crime.

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain: legally relevant features

From a criminal-law perspective, the following features of cryptocurrencies are particularly significant:

• decentralisation: there is no central supervisory authority,
• irreversibility of transactions: once executed, a transfer cannot be unilaterally revoked,
• pseudo-anonymity: the user's identity is not directly visible, but transactions remain permanently recorded,
• global availability: transactions take place without territorial limits.

It is precisely these features that challenge the traditional models of criminal-law control.

The myth of cryptocurrency anonymity

One of the most common public misconceptions is the claim that cryptocurrencies are “completely anonymous”. In reality, most blockchain systems operate on the principle of a public and permanent record of transactions.

User anonymity is relative and depends on:

• how the cryptocurrency was acquired,
• the use of digital wallets,
• links with regulated exchanges and financial institutions.

From an evidentiary point of view, the blockchain is often a source of digital evidence rather than an obstacle to prosecution.

It is important to stress that criminal liability does not arise from the mere use of cryptocurrencies, but from the purpose and manner of their use.

Slaviša Cincarević

The most common forms of cryptocurrency misuse

In practice, cryptocurrencies are most often linked to the following criminal offences:

• money laundering, through multi-layered transactions and conversions of digital assets,
• fraud and investment schemes, including fake crypto projects,
• extortion and ransomware attacks, where payment is demanded in cryptocurrency,
• financing of illegal activities, particularly in an international context.

It is important to stress that criminal liability does not arise from the mere use of cryptocurrencies, but from the purpose and manner of their use.

Criminal liability in the context of cryptocurrencies

Criminal-law analysis in these cases covers several levels of liability:

• the direct perpetrator,
• accomplices and intermediaries,
• persons who knowingly enable or conceal illegal flows of digital assets.

The question of intent, that is, awareness of the origin and purpose of the cryptocurrencies, is particularly important. The automation of a system does not exclude criminal liability where there is awareness and will to carry out a certain act.

The regulatory response and international standards

States are increasingly introducing regulatory mechanisms that include:

• customer identification (KYC),
• obligations to report suspicious transactions,
• supervision of providers of digital-asset services.

The international nature of cryptocurrencies calls for a harmonised legal approach, because high-tech crime does not stop at national borders.

Conclusion: cryptocurrencies are not beyond the law

Cryptocurrencies are a technological innovation, but not a legal vacuum. They do not abolish existing criminal-law rules; they require those rules to adapt to new circumstances.

High-tech crime does not arise from technology itself, but from its unlawful use. That is precisely why modern criminal law must both protect innovation and respond effectively to misuse.

Digital assets change the form of crime, but not the fundamental rule:

the law follows society, including its technology.

This text expresses the author's professional opinion and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.