Illegal Miners Threatened with Criminal Punishment. What to Prepare For

RBK-cryptoPublicado a 2025-12-09Actualizado a 2025-12-09

Resumen

Russian authorities plan to introduce both administrative and criminal liability for illegal cryptocurrency mining, as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak. The government aims to regulate the digital currency market and establish penalties for mining violations. Legal experts suggest that criminal charges should be reserved for cases involving significant public danger, such as large-scale damage to energy infrastructure or threats to grid stability, rather than duplicating existing laws. They argue that administrative fines are sufficient for minor offenses like small-scale home mining. The distinction between criminal and administrative liability will likely be based on the scale of damage and the amount of illicit income generated. A previous legislative draft proposed substantial fines for unregistered mining, but it was criticized for lacking proportionality. Amendments to both the Administrative and Criminal Codes are expected by 2026 to address these issues. Despite mining being legalized in Russia in 2024, an estimated 70% of miners remain unregistered due to challenges in legalizing previously imported equipment.

As stated by Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak at the meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects on December 8, the government plans to establish both administrative and criminal liability for violations related to cryptocurrency mining.

"We will legislatively regulate the issue of digital currency circulation, as well as establish administrative liability for violations of digital currency mining legislation and criminal liability for illegal mining," Novak said.

Lawyers explained to "RBC-Crypto" where the line between administrative and criminal liability might lie and what could influence the assessment of the severity of the crime.

"Eliminating the Gap"

Criminal liability for mining could make sense if it applies to socially dangerous consequences from illegal mining, rather than duplicating existing offenses, says Yuri Brisov, partner at Digital & Analogue Partners. He explained that criminal liability is considered justified when substantial harm to protected public relations can be caused or there is no other way to effectively stop the violation. Also, creating a separate offense is necessary to eliminate a gap.

Currently, Russian law has liability for electricity theft (Art. 158 of the Criminal Code), damage to power supply (Art. 165 of the Criminal Code), illegal entrepreneurship (if the activity is systematic and large-scale), and illegal miners are also usually subject to norms on tax evasion and violation of power grid operation rules, the lawyer said.

According to him, the problem is that these norms cover only specific aspects of illegal mining. If the new criminal article is targeted, for example, "illegal mining resulting in damage to energy infrastructure on a large scale" — this is not duplication, but gap elimination, the expert noted. He added that if the article is general ("mining without permission"), it will become redundant because the same thing is already addressed by administrative measures.

For comparison, the US does not have a separate criminal article for mining, but it has effective existing norms: energy theft, damage to public utilities, and collectively, these norms are sufficient for courts to effectively prosecute illegal mining, Brisov explained. A similar situation, he said, exists in Germany, France, and in general, the dominant approach in Europe is that there is no need to single out mining as a separate criminal offense if the basic norms work.

When the Damage is Too Great

In Russia, criminal liability for illegal mining could be justified when damage is caused to the energy system (or a threat to its stability is recorded) on a large scale, Brisov believes. According to him, this does not duplicate theft because damage can occur without theft, and it does not duplicate administrative liability because the latter is powerless against major violations.

"Large underground farms can create emergency loads on power grids, disable facilities, cause multi-million dollar damage, and administrative fines are clearly insufficient for such violations, as the public danger and potential damage are too great. At the same time, for 'home mining,' where the maximum risk is blowing the fuses in the house, fines are quite sufficient," the lawyer says.

Search for Justice

The line between criminal and administrative liability will most likely be determined by the amount of damage caused and the illegally obtained income, that is, by the volume of mined cryptocurrency, believes Denis Polyakov, head of the "Digital Economy" practice at the GMT Legal law firm.

The lawyer suggested that the draft law from the Ministry of Digital Development, which appeared this summer, will form the basis for defining the offenses. Polyakov recalled that the ministry proposed introducing administrative liability for illegal mining, illegal activities of mining infrastructure operators (MIO), and failure to submit reports to the Federal Tax Service on mined digital currency.

"The violation itself regarding 'illegal mining' consists of mining cryptocurrency on the territory of Russia without being included in the register. That is, to recognize a violation, it is sufficient to prove that a person is engaged in mining and is not included in the register," Polyakov explained.

According to him, the Ministry of Digital Development's draft law proposed the following fine amounts: from 200 to 400 thousand rubles for individual entrepreneurs and from 1 to 2 million rubles for legal entities. However, these fines were subsequently removed from the draft law, and one of the reasons was that the document proposed only administrative liability, the expert said.

"Effectively, this would mean that any violations, whether illegal mining with 3 ASICs (devices for cryptocurrency mining) or mining with 1000 ASICs, would be subject to the same measures of liability, which is not fair," Polyakov said.

According to him, simultaneous amendments to both the Administrative Code (KoAP) and the Criminal Code (UK) are expected in 2026. These changes should take into account the specifics of possible violations and their consequences, the lawyer says.

Other Proposals

Novak instructed to work on strengthening liability for illegal mining back in mid-July. Among the violations mentioned at the time were illegal connection to power grids, electricity theft, and violation of the mining ban.

In October, the State Duma proposed finalizing the Administrative Code regarding non-compliance with current requirements for cryptocurrency mining, and making electricity theft for mining a separate criminal offense. The latter initiative suggests that electricity theft for cryptocurrency mining is defined as an aggravating circumstance.

Mining was legalized in Russia in 2024, after which the industry began to "whiten," but the share of illegal business remains high — according to expert estimates, only about 30% of miners are officially registered. Industry participants cite the lack of a mechanism for legalizing equipment that was previously imported through gray schemes as the main reason preventing many miners from "coming out of the shadows," and call for this problem to be solved.

Arkham Announced "De-anonymization" of ZCash. Which Transactions Are Tracked

Tether Invested in Humanoid Robots. When Will They Be Launched

Only 7 Native Tokens Remain in the Green Since the Start of the Year. And It's Not Bitcoin

Lecturas Relacionadas

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片