Cryptocurrency Laundering Prosecutions
1. Introduction to Cryptocurrency Laundering
Cryptocurrency laundering refers to the process of using digital assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, or privacy coins (e.g. Monero) to disguise the origins of money obtained through criminal means. Criminals use methods like:
Mixing/tumbling services
Chain-hopping (switching between different cryptocurrencies)
Use of decentralised exchanges (DEXs)
Transferring through multiple wallets
Using crypto to buy anonymous assets
2. Legal Framework in the UK
Cryptocurrency laundering is prosecuted using existing anti-money laundering (AML) and fraud laws, including:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA)
Covers criminal property, concealment, transfer, possession, and use.
Includes powers to seize and forfeit crypto assets.
Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (as amended)
Applies to crypto exchanges and wallet providers (must conduct KYC/AML checks).
Fraud Act 2006
Where cryptocurrency is obtained through fraud or deception.
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Often overlaps with crypto crimes involving hacking or ransomware.
3. Key Legal Elements of Laundering Offences
To prosecute crypto laundering, the prosecution must prove:
Criminal property: The crypto must represent the proceeds of crime.
Knowledge or suspicion: The accused must know or suspect the asset was criminal property.
Laundering act: This includes transferring, concealing, converting, using, or possessing the asset.
4. Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Cryptocurrency Laundering Cases
Case 1: R v. Grant West (2018)
Facts:
Conducted phishing scams to steal personal data and sell it on the dark web.
Profits (over £500,000) were converted into Bitcoin and stored in various wallets.
Lived a lavish lifestyle with crypto-funded purchases.
Legal Issues:
Whether Bitcoin obtained via fraud and stored in digital wallets was “criminal property.”
Seizability and forfeitability of crypto under POCA.
Outcome:
West was convicted and sentenced to 10 years and 8 months.
Police seized a hardware wallet and cryptocurrency assets under POCA.
Significance:
Landmark case confirming Bitcoin as “property” under POCA.
Enabled seizure and forfeiture of crypto assets.
Case 2: R v. James Parker (2023)
Facts:
Exploited a bug in a crypto trading platform (Coinfirm exchange), allowing him to withdraw crypto assets fraudulently over three months.
Laundered over £1.5 million worth of cryptocurrency.
Legal Issues:
Fraud by false representation.
Laundering through wallet obfuscation and use of multiple exchanges.
Outcome:
Parker and co-conspirators were convicted of fraud and money laundering.
Sentenced to 6 years and 3 months.
Significance:
Established that exploiting a software bug for gain is fraud.
Clarified crypto proceeds can be subject to confiscation orders.
Case 3: R v. Dr. Ruja Ignatova / OneCoin Scam (UK Links, 2022 Ongoing)
Facts:
OneCoin, a fake cryptocurrency, scammed investors globally.
UK-based promoters laundered money through Bitcoin, property, and offshore accounts.
Legal Issues:
Conspiracy to defraud and launder proceeds using crypto.
FCA and NCA involvement in enforcement.
Outcome:
Several UK-based promoters were arrested and charged.
Prosecutions still ongoing; assets frozen under POCA.
Significance:
Major international crypto fraud linked to UK.
UK courts showing active pursuit of UK-based laundering facilitators.
Case 4: R v. Amir Saqib (2022)
Facts:
Received stolen cryptocurrency from an international fraud scheme.
Used crypto mixing services to launder the funds.
Legal Issues:
Whether using a mixer/tumbler constitutes concealment under POCA.
Whether proceeds were knowingly accepted.
Outcome:
Convicted of money laundering.
Court found use of mixing service was an intentional act of concealment.
Significance:
First UK conviction involving mixing services in laundering.
Confirmed that technical obfuscation tools indicate criminal knowledge.
Case 5: R v. Thomas Green (2021)
Facts:
Ran an unregistered over-the-counter (OTC) Bitcoin exchange.
Facilitated conversion of over £2 million in cash into Bitcoin for criminal gangs.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Money Laundering Regulations.
Knowledge of criminal source of funds.
Outcome:
Convicted of operating an unregistered crypto business and laundering.
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Set precedent that operating an unregistered crypto exchange is unlawful.
Reinforced duty of crypto providers to follow KYC and AML laws.
Case 6: R v. Darren Scott (2020)
Facts:
Acted as a money mule, converting drug proceeds into crypto to hide origin.
Used peer-to-peer Bitcoin platforms to avoid detection.
Legal Issues:
Money laundering under POCA.
Whether indirect handling (via P2P) still counts as “control” of criminal property.
Outcome:
Convicted of laundering; received 4 years and 6 months.
P2P transactions were sufficient to show knowledge and control.
Significance:
Demonstrated that money laundering via crypto doesn’t need direct control of stolen funds.
Peer-to-peer does not shield from liability.
5. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Crypto is property under POCA | Courts accept that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin fall within the definition of "property." |
| Mixers and obfuscation = concealment | Using tumblers or mixers is treated as deliberate concealment of criminal property. |
| Knowledge or suspicion is enough | The prosecution doesn’t need proof of actual knowledge—suspicion is sufficient under POCA. |
| Unregistered crypto exchanges are illegal | Anyone converting crypto for others must comply with AML registration and KYC requirements. |
| International reach | UK courts prosecute crypto offences with cross-border elements (e.g., OneCoin, ransomware). |
| Crypto seizure powers are active | Police can seize hardware wallets and freeze accounts under POCA, like any other asset. |
6. Challenges in Prosecuting Cryptocurrency Laundering
Anonymity and decentralisation make it harder to trace ownership.
Global jurisdiction issues when wallets are hosted abroad.
Use of privacy coins (e.g., Monero) complicates tracing.
Lack of public understanding can hinder jury trials, though this is improving.
7. Conclusion
Cryptocurrency laundering prosecutions in the UK have evolved rapidly in recent years. The courts have affirmed:
Cryptocurrencies are considered property for the purposes of prosecution and confiscation.
The use of privacy tools and noncompliant exchanges will not protect offenders.
UK authorities are increasingly effective at tracking, prosecuting, and recovering crypto assets.
RELATED Blog
0 comments