Scholarlink

<p>The rapid expansion of decentralised financial ecosystems has fundamentally transformed the landscape of money laundering, compelling criminal justice systems to reckon with assets that are pseudonymous, borderless, and technically resistant to traditional enforcement mechanisms. This article examines the legal, procedural, and evidentiary challenges posed by the freezing and confiscation of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets in money laundering investigations, drawing primarily on Greek law while situating it within the evolving European and comparative framework. The analysis advances three original contributions: first, the doctrine of “Complementary Coupling” (<i>Συμπληρωματική Σύζευξη</i>), which resolves the doctrinal relationship between Articles 261 and 265 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure when applied to non-custodial wallets, and which is here defended against objections grounded in the principle of legality and strict construction; second, a set of five Daubert-inspired admissibility criteria for blockchain analytics evidence, reframed around the probabilistic and contestable epistemology of on-chain attribution; and third, a set of <i>de lege ferenda</i> proposals, including a draft Article 265A of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, with an explicit distinction between proposals that are transferable across jurisdictions and those that depend on the specific architecture of Greek criminal procedure. Through comparative analysis of French, German, British, and American approaches to compelled decryption, asset freezing, and digital forensic evidence — and through documented enforcement case studies — the article identifies both convergent trends and normative divergences. It argues that, while recent EU instruments (MiCA, the Transfer of Funds Regulation, and Directive (EU) 2024/1260) have created an opportunity for principled harmonisation, the persistent migration of illicit value toward decentralised, non-custodial, and privacy-enhancing infrastructures means that regulation alone cannot render the ecosystem fully traceable, and that procedural and constitutional adaptation remains indispensable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Freezing and Confiscation of Cryptocurrencies in Money Laundering Investigations: Procedural Challenges, Comparative Analysis, and Reform Proposals

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Angelos Tsiftsis

摘要

The rapid expansion of decentralised financial ecosystems has fundamentally transformed the landscape of money laundering, compelling criminal justice systems to reckon with assets that are pseudonymous, borderless, and technically resistant to traditional enforcement mechanisms. This article examines the legal, procedural, and evidentiary challenges posed by the freezing and confiscation of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets in money laundering investigations, drawing primarily on Greek law while situating it within the evolving European and comparative framework. The analysis advances three original contributions: first, the doctrine of “Complementary Coupling” (Συμπληρωματική Σύζευξη), which resolves the doctrinal relationship between Articles 261 and 265 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure when applied to non-custodial wallets, and which is here defended against objections grounded in the principle of legality and strict construction; second, a set of five Daubert-inspired admissibility criteria for blockchain analytics evidence, reframed around the probabilistic and contestable epistemology of on-chain attribution; and third, a set of de lege ferenda proposals, including a draft Article 265A of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, with an explicit distinction between proposals that are transferable across jurisdictions and those that depend on the specific architecture of Greek criminal procedure. Through comparative analysis of French, German, British, and American approaches to compelled decryption, asset freezing, and digital forensic evidence — and through documented enforcement case studies — the article identifies both convergent trends and normative divergences. It argues that, while recent EU instruments (MiCA, the Transfer of Funds Regulation, and Directive (EU) 2024/1260) have created an opportunity for principled harmonisation, the persistent migration of illicit value toward decentralised, non-custodial, and privacy-enhancing infrastructures means that regulation alone cannot render the ecosystem fully traceable, and that procedural and constitutional adaptation remains indispensable.