Analysis Of Cryptocurrency-Related Criminal Activity
1. Introduction to Cryptocurrency-Related Criminal Activity
Cryptocurrency is a decentralized digital currency secured by cryptography. While it offers efficiency and anonymity, it has also become a tool for criminal activities, such as:
Money laundering and terrorism financing
Fraud and Ponzi schemes
Cyber theft and hacking of wallets/exchanges
Illegal trading and tax evasion
Ransomware payments
Legal Framework in India:
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Cybercrime and data protection
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Fraud (Section 420), cheating (Section 406), criminal breach of trust (Section 406)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Money laundering using cryptocurrencies
RBI Circulars and Regulations – Prohibitions and advisories on crypto transactions
FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) – Unregulated cross-border cryptocurrency transactions
2. Key Judicial Principles
Courts have addressed cryptocurrency-related criminal activity in terms of:
Legality of trading and holding cryptocurrency
Applicability of existing criminal and anti-money laundering laws
Digital evidence and tracing of crypto transactions
Recovery of defrauded money
3. Landmark Cases
(a) Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) v. Reserve Bank of India (2020, Supreme Court)
Facts: RBI issued a circular in 2018 banning regulated banks from dealing with cryptocurrency exchanges, citing risk of fraud and money laundering. Crypto exchanges challenged it.
Judgment:
Supreme Court lifted the RBI ban, declaring it unconstitutional.
Observed that cryptocurrency per se is not illegal, but illegal use can attract criminal liability.
Encouraged government to formulate a regulatory framework.
Significance: Clarified the legal status of crypto in India and distinguished lawful vs. criminal activity.
(b) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, SC) – Digital Evidence Precedent
Facts: Though not crypto-specific, this case dealt with intermediary liability for online content.
Judgment & Significance:
Established principles for digital evidence admissibility, traceability, and intermediary responsibility.
Courts now rely on these principles in crypto fraud cases, since blockchain transactions can be traced digitally.
(c) Jignesh Shah vs Enforcement Directorate (ED), 2021
Facts: ED investigated alleged cryptocurrency fraud and Ponzi schemes promising high returns.
Judgment:
Court allowed ED to provisionally attach cryptocurrency assets under PMLA.
Recognized that crypto can be converted to fiat money, thus falling under money laundering statutes.
Emphasized traceability of wallets and transactions as evidence.
Significance: Established that cryptocurrencies can be treated as property under PMLA in criminal investigations.
(d) Mehul Choksi / Punjab National Bank Scam – Cryptocurrency Angle (2020-21)
Facts: Investigations revealed attempts to convert proceeds of bank fraud into cryptocurrencies to evade detection.
Judgment & Action:
Indian agencies seized crypto wallets and tracked transactions.
Highlighted that digital assets can be criminal instruments for fraud, embezzlement, and laundering.
Reinforced need for regulation and international cooperation.
Significance: Demonstrated practical enforcement against crypto-based crime.
(e) CBI v. Unocoin & WazirX (Ongoing Investigations, 2021-23)
Facts: CBI and ED investigated crypto exchanges for alleged illegal trading, unregistered exchange activity, and money laundering.
Judgment & Action:
Courts allowed temporary freezing of accounts and wallets.
Observed that cryptocurrency exchange operations require strict KYC and AML compliance.
Reinforced judicial oversight over crypto-related financial crime.
Significance: Bridges regulatory compliance and criminal accountability in crypto ecosystems.
(f) United States v. Silk Road Case (2013, USA)
Facts: Ross Ulbricht ran Silk Road, an online marketplace for illegal drugs using Bitcoin.
Judgment:
Convicted for money laundering, drug trafficking, and conspiracy.
Courts recognized Bitcoin transactions as traceable financial instruments despite perceived anonymity.
Heavy sentencing imposed on the operator.
Significance: Landmark international case showing cryptocurrency as a tool for crime but traceable under law.
(g) SEC v. Ripple Labs (USA, Ongoing, 2020-Present)
Facts: SEC alleged Ripple Labs sold unregistered securities using XRP cryptocurrency.
Judgment & Status:
Courts are examining crypto as investment instrument vs. currency.
Highlights regulatory ambiguity and potential criminal liability if rules are violated.
Significance: Shows global convergence on regulating cryptocurrency to prevent financial crimes.
4. Analysis and Patterns
From these cases, several principles emerge:
Cryptocurrency is not inherently illegal, but illegal activity using crypto attracts strict criminal liability.
Money laundering and Ponzi schemes using crypto fall under PMLA and IPC.
Digital evidence from blockchain is admissible in court and crucial for prosecution.
Exchanges and wallets are subject to KYC, AML, and regulatory oversight.
International cooperation is vital due to the borderless nature of crypto.
5. Challenges in Prosecuting Crypto Crimes
Anonymity and pseudonymity of users
Cross-border jurisdiction issues
Rapid technological innovation
Lack of standardized regulation
6. Conclusion
Cryptocurrency-related criminal activity has emerged as a serious concern in India and globally. Courts have recognized the need to balance innovation with prevention of crime, holding that:
Crypto can be traced, attached, and treated as property for criminal purposes
Digital and blockchain evidence is valid in court
Regulatory compliance is critical to prevent fraud and money laundering
Cases like IAMAI v. RBI, Jignesh Shah (ED), and Silk Road demonstrate the evolving legal landscape, emphasizing both technological understanding and strict enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments