Research On Legal Challenges In Prosecuting Decentralized Finance (Defi) Crimes
Legal Challenges in Prosecuting DeFi Crimes
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) refers to financial systems built on blockchain networks that operate without central intermediaries. While DeFi provides new opportunities, it also creates significant challenges for law enforcement and legal systems. These challenges can be broadly categorized into structural, technical, jurisdictional, and evidentiary issues.
1. Lack of a Recognized Legal Entity
Most DeFi protocols operate through smart contracts and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs).
DAOs and smart contracts often lack legal personhood. Traditional law enforcement relies on charging a legal entity or an identifiable individual. Without a recognized defendant, it is unclear whom to hold accountable.
This creates a dilemma: should liability fall on the developers, token holders, or participants in the protocol?
Implication: Many actors involved in DeFi escape traditional liability frameworks, even if their platforms are used for criminal activity.
2. Pseudonymity and Lack of KYC
Users transact through wallet addresses, which are pseudonymous.
Unlike banks, most DeFi protocols do not enforce Know Your Customer (KYC) or anti-money laundering (AML) rules.
Linking blockchain transactions to real-world individuals is extremely difficult. Techniques like mixers and tumblers further obscure the origin of funds.
Implication: Investigators face major hurdles in identifying perpetrators or tracing illicit funds to enforce criminal laws.
3. Technical Complexity and Evidentiary Challenges
Smart contracts are complex, and blockchain technology is highly technical. Many prosecutors, judges, and regulators lack the necessary expertise.
Evidence must often show that on-chain actions correspond to illegal real-world acts. This requires technical forensics, cross-referencing blockchain data with off-chain information, and sometimes access to private keys or devices.
Traditional legal definitions (e.g., property, money transmission, securities) do not map neatly onto DeFi constructs.
Implication: Even visible blockchain activity can be hard to translate into admissible evidence for prosecution.
4. Jurisdictional Challenges
DeFi is global and borderless. Developers may reside in one country, users in another, and transactions may touch multiple blockchains.
Different countries have varying regulations or legal interpretations. This makes it difficult to establish jurisdiction, coordinate enforcement, or extradite offenders.
Implication: Cross-border crimes may go unpunished due to lack of cooperation or regulatory gaps.
5. Regulatory and Legal Uncertainty
Existing laws on money laundering, securities, property, and financial services were not designed with decentralized digital assets in mind.
Courts and regulators often interpret these laws creatively, but this leads to uncertainty.
Regulatory action may conflict with constitutional or statutory limits. For instance, applying sanctions to immutable smart contracts raises novel legal questions.
Implication: Legal ambiguity discourages enforcement and makes outcomes unpredictable.
Case Law Illustrating Challenges in DeFi Prosecution
1. Tornado Cash (U.S.)
Tornado Cash is a decentralized mixing service used to anonymize cryptocurrency transactions.
U.S. authorities sanctioned Tornado Cash for allegedly laundering billions of dollars, including funds linked to cybercrime and North Korea.
However, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that sanctioning the immutable smart contracts themselves was not valid because the contracts are not considered “property” under existing law.
Legal Lesson: Courts may resist extending traditional legal concepts to decentralized code. While enforcement is possible against identifiable individuals, prosecuting code alone is problematic.
2. DAO Exploit Cases
In 2016, the original DAO (a DeFi investment platform on Ethereum) was exploited for millions of dollars.
Attempts to pursue legal action against unknown attackers were stymied due to pseudonymity and lack of central control.
Legal Lesson: Without identifiable perpetrators, even large-scale thefts may go unprosecuted.
3. Rug Pull Scams in DeFi
Multiple cases exist where developers create DeFi projects, attract investors, and withdraw all funds (“rug pull”), leaving users with losses.
Legal action is difficult because developers often remain pseudonymous, and jurisdictional claims are uncertain.
Legal Lesson: DeFi’s structure makes enforcement slow and uncertain, with victims often left without recourse.
Summary of Challenges
| Challenge | Description | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of legal entity | DAOs and smart contracts are not recognized persons | Difficult to identify defendants |
| Pseudonymity | Transactions do not require identity verification | Hard to trace funds or identify criminals |
| Technical complexity | Smart contracts and blockchain technology are complex | Evidence is hard to interpret or present in court |
| Jurisdictional issues | DeFi operates globally | Difficult to enforce laws across borders |
| Legal uncertainty | Existing laws do not directly cover DeFi | Enforcement may fail or be inconsistent |
Emerging Approaches and Recommendations
Legal Recognition of DAOs: Some jurisdictions are beginning to create legal frameworks for DAOs to assign liability.
Mandatory Compliance for Certain Protocols: DeFi protocols could adopt KYC/AML measures for high-risk functions, such as mixers.
International Cooperation: Coordinated cross-border enforcement can address jurisdictional gaps.
Capacity Building: Prosecutors and law enforcement need specialized training in blockchain and digital forensics.
Law Reform: Updating definitions of property, financial instruments, and money services to include decentralized digital assets.
Conclusion
Prosecuting DeFi crimes is exceptionally challenging due to structural decentralization, pseudonymity, technical complexity, and legal ambiguity. Cases like Tornado Cash illustrate that while enforcement is possible, outcomes remain uncertain. Bridging this enforcement gap will require legal reform, international cooperation, and enhanced investigative capacity. Until these adaptations occur, many DeFi crimes will remain difficult or impossible to prosecute effectively.
RELATED Blog
comments