Illegal Miners Threatened with Criminal Punishment. What to Prepare For

RBK-crypto发布于2025-12-09更新于2025-12-09

文章摘要

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

你可能也喜欢

刑拘 37 天,第一批靠“AI 中转站”发财的人开始进去了

2026年5月,据称一名AI中转站站长因非法逆向爬取、倒卖低价AI接口资源被刑事拘留37天,目前取保候审。此事揭示了当前火爆的AI中转站业务背后的法律与安全风险。 AI中转站为国内用户提供访问海外大模型(如OpenAI、Claude)的渠道,通过统一接口解决网络、支付等问题,因此需求激增。其盈利模式包括:转卖账号免费额度、利用退款机制套利、虚报计费Token、用低成本模型掉包高价模型,以及转卖用户对话数据。这些做法使得服务价格极低,但实质多为灰色操作。 从法律层面分析,该业务主要存在三大风险:1. **经营模式违法**:通过技术手段逆向获取接口、规避地区限制,且未取得电信业务经营许可,可能涉嫌非法经营罪。2. **数据安全缺失**:作为大量用户数据的经手方,多数中转站缺乏安全管理制度,一旦数据泄露,可能构成拒不履行信息网络安全管理义务罪。3. **违规收集出售数据**:未经用户同意收集并转卖包含个人或商业敏感信息的对话记录,极易达到侵犯公民个人信息罪的立案标准。 该事件反映出AI行业野蛮生长下的隐患。对用户而言,低价伴随数据暴露风险;对厂商而言,灰产消耗其资源、扰乱定价体系,损害行业可持续发展。行业正处规范化关键期,建立合规秩序与信任基础是长远发展的前提。

marsbit43分钟前

刑拘 37 天,第一批靠“AI 中转站”发财的人开始进去了

marsbit43分钟前

交易

现货
合约
活动图片