The subject of the research is the legal and organizational-tactical problems of confiscation, seizure, storage, and forfeiture of digital currencies in the criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation. It analyzes the regulatory provisions of Article 164.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the law enforcement practices that had developed before its introduction and the tactical algorithms developed by investigative bodies when dealing with crypto assets. The study investigates the characteristics of cryptocurrencies (decentralization, anonymity, transboundary nature) that determine the specifics of their involvement in illegal activities: as a means of laundering criminal proceeds, as objects of theft, and as tools for creating fake crypto exchanges and financial pyramids. Special attention is given to the classification of digital currencies according to their degree of anonymity, functional purpose, consensus mechanism, relation to blockchain, and degree of correlation with real assets as a methodological basis for a differentiated approach to seizure and storage. The methodological foundation comprises a comprehensive intersectoral approach that combines methods of criminal procedural, forensic, and comparative legal analysis. A formal-legal method is used to analyze the provisions of Article 164.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Federal Law No. 259-FZ; a system analysis method is utilized to identify the interconnections between regulatory frameworks, tactical techniques, and technological features of cryptocurrency systems. The novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive analysis of the evolution of law enforcement approaches to the seizure of cryptocurrency. Regulatory gaps have been identified and substantiated: the lack of mandatory participation of an economic specialist for asset valuation in Article 164.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which contradicts the requirement of proportionality of seizure; unresolved storage issues (access for officials, internet connection, inventory, firmware updates) in the absence of subordinate regulations from the Government of the Russian Federation. Key conclusions: 1) The extrapolation of the civil law approach to criminal proceedings generates a constitutional conflict; 2) The use of foreign-made hardware wallets creates unacceptable risks in the absence of domestically certified analogs, which requires integrity checks of the equipment and the presence of undisclosed capabilities with the involvement of a highly qualified information security specialist; 3) A systemic deficiency of the Russian model is the lack of a mechanism for the final confiscation and realization of seized crypto assets (unlike in the USA and the EU).
Oksana Vladimirovna Piatkova (Thu,) studied this question.