Criminal Liability For Bribes Paid Through Cryptocurrencies
Case 1: Marat Tambiev (Russia)
Facts:
Marat Tambiev, a former Russian investigator, accepted a bribe in the form of bitcoin—2,718 BTC—valued at over $180 million at the time. The bribe was paid by hackers in exchange for not seizing their illegally obtained assets.
Legal Liability:
Charged under Russian Criminal Code for bribery (Article 290).
The crime involved accepting “anything of value” (bitcoin included).
Outcome:
Sentenced to 16 years in prison.
Bitcoin wallets and keys were seized, and a large fine imposed.
Significance:
Demonstrates that cryptocurrency is fully recognized as “value” under bribery laws.
Blockchain evidence (wallets, transaction logs) can be central to prosecution.
Case 2: Sam Bankman-Fried / FTX (U.S.) – Alleged Crypto Bribe
Facts:
Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of FTX, allegedly authorised payments in cryptocurrency worth ~$40 million to Chinese officials to unfreeze accounts of his company in China.
Legal Liability:
Alleged bribery of foreign officials under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Payment via cryptocurrency constitutes “anything of value” intended to influence an official act.
Outcome:
The case is ongoing. Bribery allegations are part of broader fraud and corruption investigations.
Significance:
Highlights cross-border bribery risks via crypto.
Shows that crypto payments can fall under anti-bribery and anti-corruption regulations even internationally.
Case 3: BIT Mining Ltd. (China/Japan)
Facts:
BIT Mining Ltd., a cryptocurrency mining company, allegedly paid bribes to Japanese officials through intermediaries to secure approvals for a resort development project. Payments were structured in a way that included cryptocurrency-related transactions.
Legal Liability:
Violations of anti-bribery and corporate internal control laws (similar to FCPA in U.S.).
Corporate liability arises even if crypto is used indirectly.
Outcome:
Company settled with regulators and paid penalties (~$10 million).
Former executives faced prosecution.
Significance:
Demonstrates corporate liability in crypto-related bribery schemes.
Emphasizes the need for internal controls to monitor crypto transactions.
Case 4: Chinese Intelligence Officers Bribing a U.S. Official (U.S.)
Facts:
Two Chinese intelligence officers attempted to influence a U.S. government employee by sending $61,000 in bitcoin to obstruct a criminal investigation of a Chinese telecom company.
Legal Liability:
Bribery of a U.S. official, even by foreign actors, constitutes a criminal offense.
Payment in cryptocurrency is treated the same as cash.
Outcome:
Officers charged with bribery and money laundering via cryptocurrency.
Significance:
Shows crypto can be used for small-value bribes targeting officials.
Jurisdictional reach: U.S. law applies when U.S. officials are targeted.
Highlights the role of blockchain analysis in tracing illicit payments.
Case 5: Karnataka Lokayukta Cryptocurrency Probe (India)
Facts:
Officials in Karnataka allegedly extorted bribes and converted proceeds into cryptocurrency to obscure origins. Investigation revealed multiple crypto accounts with illicit transactions totaling over 4 crore INR (~$500,000).
Legal Liability:
Public officials charged under India’s Prevention of Corruption Act.
Using crypto to disguise bribe proceeds adds money-laundering liability.
Outcome:
Investigation ongoing; officials suspended or under inquiry.
Significance:
Shows crypto used not only for bribery but also for laundering illicit gains.
Emphasizes need for public officials to avoid both direct and indirect cryptocurrency corruption.
Case 6: European Union Crypto Bribery Case (Hypothetical / Composite EU Example)
Facts:
A private contractor in Germany paid a local municipal official in Ethereum (~€500,000) to secure a public procurement contract. The payment was structured via a blockchain-based wallet using smart contracts.
Legal Liability:
Bribery of public officials under German Criminal Code.
Crypto payment constitutes a bribe; smart contracts do not exempt criminal liability.
Outcome:
Contractor and official both prosecuted; fines and prison sentences imposed.
Ethereum was seized and converted to cover penalties.
Significance:
Highlights how EU jurisdictions are prepared to treat cryptocurrency as “value” for bribery.
Smart contracts or decentralized payments are still traceable and prosecutable.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Cryptocurrency is legally treated as “value” in bribery laws worldwide.
Both the payer and recipient are criminally liable, and corporations can face compliance penalties.
Blockchain leaves an immutable trail, which regulators increasingly use to trace illicit payments.
Cross-border bribery involving crypto can still trigger domestic criminal laws (FCPA, EU, India, Russia, etc.).
Crypto is used both to pay bribes and to conceal or launder illicit proceeds, attracting additional charges.
RELATED Blog
comments