Cross-Border Crypto Prosecutions
1. Introduction to Cross-Border Crypto Prosecutions
Cryptocurrencies operate in a decentralized, borderless environment, making regulation and law enforcement extremely challenging. Cross-border crypto prosecutions occur when:
Criminal activity involves parties in multiple jurisdictions, or
The cryptocurrency transaction crosses national borders.
Legal challenges include:
Jurisdictional issues: Determining which country has the right to prosecute.
Extradition hurdles: Bringing defendants to a country with proper jurisdiction.
Evidence collection: Blockchain transactions are pseudonymous, making evidence gathering difficult.
Conflict of laws: Different countries may classify crypto differently (property, currency, security).
2. Legal Frameworks Used in Cross-Border Crypto Cases
Countries often rely on:
Money laundering laws: Since crypto can be used to obscure illicit transfers.
Securities regulations: ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) may be deemed unregistered securities.
Fraud and cybercrime laws: For scams, theft, or ransomware payments.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): For cross-border evidence gathering.
3. Case Law Examples of Cross-Border Crypto Prosecutions
Here are some notable examples:
A. United States v. Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road Case, 2015)
Facts: Ross Ulbricht operated Silk Road, an online marketplace facilitating illegal drug sales, paid primarily in Bitcoin. Although servers were hosted globally, the U.S. prosecuted him.
Legal Issues:
Money laundering
Conspiracy to traffic narcotics
Computer hacking
Cross-Border Element: Sellers and buyers were international, but the U.S. claimed jurisdiction because Ulbricht operated from the U.S., and significant criminal effects were felt there.
Outcome: Ulbricht sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
Significance: Demonstrates U.S. assertion of jurisdiction over cross-border crypto crime based on effects principle.
B. SEC v. Kik Interactive Inc. (2019–2020)
Facts: Kik launched an ICO selling its cryptocurrency, Kin, raising $100 million. SEC claimed it was an unregistered securities offering.
Cross-Border Issue: Investors were international, and tokens were sold globally online.
Outcome: Kik agreed to pay $5 million in settlement.
Significance: Illustrates regulatory reach across borders when crypto offerings are global.
C. OneCoin Cases (R. v. Ruja Ignatova et al.)
Facts: OneCoin was a fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme, often called a “Ponzi scheme.” Victims were located in multiple countries. Ruja Ignatova disappeared; others were prosecuted.
Legal Issues: Fraud, money laundering, and cross-border conspiracy.
Outcome:
Some co-conspirators were arrested in countries like the UK and U.S.
Multi-jurisdiction investigations coordinated via INTERPOL and MLATs.
Significance: Shows the complexity of coordinating enforcement against international crypto fraud.
D. Bitfinex Hack and Binance Investigations
Facts: Hackers stole hundreds of millions in crypto. Funds were laundered across multiple countries through exchanges.
Cross-Border Legal Approach:
Law enforcement coordinated internationally
Blockchain analytics used to trace illicit transfers
Multiple jurisdictions involved in prosecution
Significance: Highlights technical and jurisdictional challenges in cross-border crypto crime.
4. Challenges and Solutions in Cross-Border Crypto Prosecutions
| Challenge | Description | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Crypto can exist anywhere | Use “effects doctrine” or nationality principle |
| Extradition | Perpetrators in foreign countries | Treaties and international cooperation (MLATs, INTERPOL) |
| Evidence collection | Blockchain pseudonymity | Blockchain forensics and subpoenas to exchanges |
| Regulatory gaps | Some countries lack crypto laws | Harmonization of laws via FATF, EU, and other bodies |
5. Key Legal Principles
Effects Doctrine: A country can prosecute if the crime has substantial effects within its territory. (Used in Silk Road case)
Nationality Principle: Citizens of a country can be prosecuted for crimes committed abroad.
Universality Principle: For certain crimes (terrorism, money laundering), all countries can claim jurisdiction.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): Essential for evidence collection across borders.
6. Conclusion
Cross-border crypto prosecutions are complex due to the borderless nature of cryptocurrencies. Courts rely on:
Jurisdiction based on nationality or effect
International cooperation
Advanced blockchain forensics
Case law like Ulbricht, Kik, and OneCoin demonstrates that despite challenges, countries are asserting authority and holding criminals accountable globally.
RELATED Blog
comments