Bringing cryptocurrency out of the gray zone at Pravo.ru became one of the prominent topics at PMYUF: participants in the discussion analyzed the draft law on digital currencies, the roles of the Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Finance, protection of retail clients, the work of crypto exchanges, and business risks under sanctions—from loss of funds and disputes with intermediaries to compliance requirements, source of funds checks, and protection through licensed infrastructure.
The crypto market in Russia has long ceased to be a niche story for enthusiasts. Citizens’ investments are estimated in the hundreds of billions of rubles, and annual turnover reaches trillions. At the same time, a significant portion of operations remains outside full regulation: if a client loses funds or has a dispute with an intermediary, a clear protection mechanism does not always work.
This problem is to be solved by a major draft law on digital currencies. It is currently being prepared for a second reading, and the main discussion at the forum revolved around the future regulatory model: how to bring the market out of the gray zone without turning the rules into a barrier for all new participants.
Legal Regime for Cryptocurrency: What the Regulator Proposes
The discussion was opened by the developers of draft law No. 1194918-8. Andrey Medvedev, Director of the Legal Department of the Bank of Russia, explained the general structure of the future rules and immediately outlined the regulator’s fundamental position: the attitude toward digital currencies remains cautious and strict.
The Bank of Russia still considers digital currency to be an extremely risky, extremely volatile investment instrument. — Andrey Medvedev, Director of the Legal Department of the Bank of Russia
The future infrastructure, as envisioned by the regulator, should be built around several key elements.
- Digital currency: within the regulated framework, it is planned to be considered only as an investment instrument, not as a means for internal settlements.
- Digital depository: a licensed intermediary who must account for such an asset. This becomes the central link in the new system.
- Crypto exchange: an online service for exchanging digital currencies will be able to operate legally if it obtains a license and accepts oversight, compliance, and client transaction accounting requirements.
For businesses, this means that digital currency will be considered an asset (accounting in this model should rely on transparent records with a licensed intermediary), not a means of payment for internal settlements. In this logic, Bitcoin and other digital currencies remain investment objects, not a replacement for ruble payments.
Ministry of Finance: It Is Important to Preserve Working Scenarios for Clients and Businesses
Alexey Yakovlev, Director of the Financial Policy Department at the Ministry of Finance, looked at the project from the perspective of users and infrastructure. According to him, the authors managed to preserve the main use cases for digital currencies for both citizens and companies. Among these scenarios are cross-border transfers through regulated intermediaries.
For the system to work, one law is not enough. Working details are needed:
- adoption of about a dozen subordinate acts;
- definition of requirements for intermediaries;
- establishment of compliance rules;
- regulation of cross-border transfers through regulated intermediaries.
If this is delayed, the market will get a framework without clear procedures.
According to the Ministry of Finance representative, cryptocurrency regulation should not be seen only as a set of prohibitions. On the contrary, clear rules should give market participants the opportunity to plan for years ahead, not live in constant uncertainty.
The State Duma in this structure becomes the key platform where the balance between consumer protection, business interests, and the regulator’s position should be fixed before the second reading. The more precisely the basic norms are formulated, the fewer controversial issues will go into subordinate acts.
Protection of the Retail Client and the Transition Period
Senator Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov supported the prompt adoption of the law and disagreed with overly pessimistic assessments. He recalled that over the past 10 years, the regulator could have taken the path of a complete ban, but instead gave the market an opportunity to develop.
The main risk, according to the senator, lies with the ordinary retail client. He gave a clear example: a person comes to a bank to open a deposit, but instead of a conservative product, leaves with cryptocurrency, not fully understanding its volatility and risks.
I would not want our grandmother, coming to the bank to open a deposit, to leave with crypto. — Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov, Member of the Federation Council
Shenderyuk-Zhidkov positively assessed the idea of a transition period. The point is that the strict restrictions of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code would not take effect immediately. This approach should give the market time to adapt.
At the same time, the issue of confidentiality of operations for businesses under sanctions remains open. For companies, this is a practical problem: if cryptocurrency is used as a workaround for cross-border operations, too much disclosure can create additional risks, while too little can raise questions from compliance and financial control. In the sanctions agenda, lawyers often look beyond individual cases—from restrictions against Russia to the toughest international regimes, where the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is mentioned.
Under sanctions, cryptocurrency does not automatically remove risks: the more complex the transaction route, the more important transparent compliance and clear information disclosure rules become.
Criticism From the Audience: Too Much Regulation
Not all participants in the discussion considered the proposed model balanced. There was criticism from the audience: the draft law may be so detailed and strict that new players will find it difficult to find a place in it. According to opponents, the structure is more convenient for already existing large financial organizations.
Other questions were also raised: will the new rules infringe on the right to judicial protection, how will the cooling-off period for a volatile asset be arranged, and where is the line between client protection and excessive guardianship.
A separate layer of discussion is related to compliance. If the legal market is to compete with the gray one, it will have to be both convenient for the client and reliable for oversight. Such a system inevitably includes:
- source of funds checks;
- assessment of money laundering risks;
- interaction with the Federal Financial Monitoring Service where required by financial control rules.
The Banking View: Transparent Accounting Is Needed, but There Are Too Many Rules
The position of the traditional banking sector was presented by Tatiana Kuzmina, First Vice President of Gazprombank. She compared the future infrastructure to the creation of a central depository in 2011 and generally assessed the idea positively. The main advantage is end-to-end and clear accounting of rights.
The challenge is that you will have to open the government and Bank of Russia websites every day to see if there is a new regulatory proposal. — Tatiana Kuzmina, First Vice President of Gazprombank
The main disadvantage, according to Kuzmina, is the excess of references to subordinate acts. She suggested moving the basic elements of regulation directly into the law. For example, requirements for the capital of infrastructure participants are better changed through a full legislative procedure, not through more flexible and faster subordinate decisions.
Kuzmina also proposed creating a single platform where, for each type of activity, it would be clear who is responsible for regulation, who exercises oversight, and which document establishes the rules. Otherwise, she said, it will be difficult to keep the whole system in mind even for a professional lawyer.
Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia Alexey Guznov, who moderated the discussion, supported this idea and promised to take it into account. Another point Kuzmina made concerned settlements between non-residents: in her opinion, an overly free regime could create a channel for the withdrawal of Russian assets abroad through the non-resident part. This risk should be closed by requirements in acts of the Bank of Russia.
Digital Rights, Taxes, and Stablecoins
Denis Dodon, Director of the Center for Innovation Development at Alfa-Bank, suggested looking more broadly than just at cryptocurrencies. He recalled the digital rights market, which has already attracted about 3.4 trillion rubles. He called the consolidation of different types of digital rights in one law a big step forward and a structure rare in global practice.
Dodon considers the tax block the main shortcoming. According to him, without constant expert work, the market will inevitably face a large number of problems. He proposed creating a working group on the taxation of digital instruments—at the Ministry of Finance, the Federation Council, or the State Duma. The place is not so important; what matters is ongoing work.
We will collect an incredible number of rakes. — Denis Dodon, Director of the Center for Innovation Development at Alfa-Bank
The Ministry of Finance responded to the proposal: Alexey Yakovlev said that the topic will be worked out together with colleagues responsible for tax policy. Dodon also noted that stablecoins are not yet singled out separately in the draft law, but in his opinion, the market will gradually move toward their regulation.
The issue of familiar infrastructure is also important for clients. If the legal environment is less convenient than major international platforms like Binance and Bybit, part of the demand may remain outside the regulated framework. Therefore, the task of the law is not only to define concepts but also to make the legal path truly competitive.
The Experience of Belarus and the Problem of Trust in Blockchain
Alexey Korolenko, Executive Director of Cifra Markets, shared the experience of a neighboring jurisdiction. He recalled that in Belarus, bitcoin was discussed at the legal regulation level as early as 2017, when the relevant presidential decree appeared.
The task of regulation is for the legal market to win the competition against the gray one. — Alexey Korolenko, Executive Director of Cifra Markets
Korolenko emphasized: users need not so much complex definitions as convenient and reliable infrastructure. He also called for unified approaches to compliance within the Union State to avoid regulatory arbitrage between different jurisdictions.
The session was concluded by Vladislav Arkhipov, Head of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law at St. Petersburg State University. He noted that over 13 years, the focus has changed significantly: previously, cryptocurrency was more often discussed as part of the internet agenda, but now it is already a full-fledged topic of financial markets.
Arkhipov drew attention to the paradox of trust. Many crypto market participants have long since abandoned the old libertarian ideal and comply with the requirements of specific states. This, in turn, triggers a reverse crisis of trust in open blockchain.
The fact of owning cryptocurrency is tied to whether someone knows the key or not. This is not at all the same as classic ownership. — Vladislav Arkhipov, Head of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law at St. Petersburg State University
The general conclusion of the discussion was pragmatic: a complete ban no longer seems like a workable scenario, but leaving the market in the gray zone is also impossible. The new legal regime for cryptocurrencies should protect the consumer, give businesses clear rules, and create infrastructure in which legal players can compete not only formally, but also in terms of service quality.
{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “Article”,
“about”: [
{
“@type”: “Thing”,
“name”: “Cryptocurrency”
},
{
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “Bank of Russia”
},
{
“@type”: “Place”,
“name”: “Russia”
},
{
“@type”: “Thing”,
“name”: “Bitcoin”
},
{
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “State Duma”
},
{
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “Federal Financial Monitoring Service”
},
{
“@type”: “Thing”,
“name”: “Money Laundering”
},
{
“@type”: “Place”,
“name”: “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”
},
{
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “Binance”
},
{
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “Bybit”
}
]
}
