Figure in the law: what changes the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of protecting the rights of crypto owners

Judicial protection applies to crypto transactions, about which the owner has not informed the state — this decision was made by the Constitutional Court. The reason was the case of Dmitry Timchenko, who bought 1000 USDT, did not report it to the tax service, and handed them over to management. However, the crypt was not returned to him. The courts refused to protect his property due to failure to notify the Federal Tax Service. However, the Constitutional Court recognized this as unacceptable. He also recommended that the authorities clarify the regulation. What this means for the cryptocurrency market and investors is in the Izvestia article.

Is it possible to count on legal protection for owners of cryptocurrencies

The Constitutional Court has decided to protect the rights of digital asset owners. He ruled that the absence of a notification to the tax service about the possession of cryptocurrency does not automatically deprive a person of the opportunity to count on legal protection. The authorities can introduce such rules to control and transparency the turnover of digital assets. But this requirement should not turn into a ban on going to court.

The reason for the claim to the Constitutional Court was the case of Dmitry Timchenko. His representative, Marat Amanliev, managing partner of the Right Side Law Office in Moscow, told Izvestia that by his ruling, the Constitutional Court resolved the issue of principle for the Russian cryptocurrency industry: is digital currency subject to protection if its owner has not notified the Federal Tax Service about it.

"The court's answer is yes," the lawyer emphasized. — Our principal Dmitry Timchenko tried to return 1 thousand USDT transferred under the digital currency management agreement. The tokens were not returned to him, and the courts of all instances denied the claim, citing the fact that the citizen had not notified the state of his possession of the digital currency. We challenged the constitutionality of this provision and reached the Constitutional Court," he said.

According to Dmitry Timchenko's representative, the decision has a precedent value. Before making changes to the legislation, courts do not have the right to refuse judicial protection due to failure to notify tax authorities in disputes about digital currency obtained not as a result of mining.

"Moreover, all similar cases in the Russian Federation are subject to review, not just the case of our client,— said Marat Amanliev. — The Constitutional Court pointed out the insufficiency and fragmentation of the current regulation of digital assets: their qualifications, including tokens and stablecoins (their exchange rate is linked to a specific asset, for example, the dollar. — Ed.), should be based on the law, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, and not depend on the will of the parties.

The Constitutional Court noted that the diversity of digital assets and the complexity of the legal relations associated with them make it difficult to unambiguously classify them as objects of civil turnover, and therefore the legislation requires further improvement.

The Constitutional Court said a simple but fundamental thing — tax discipline and the right to judicial protection should not be confused and replaced by one another, said Alexey Gavrishev, lawyer and managing partner of AVG Legal.

— The principle of this decision is that previously the courts actually used non—notification as a "red card": if you did not inform, it means that you are to blame, go past the court, — the expert explained. — This turned the notification into a punitive tool and, in fact, legalized a situation in which digital assets could not be returned with impunity. The COP broke this logic.

It looked like the disparity of the crypt and any other property. Digital currencies have been considered as such since 2021, and since 2025, taxes have been paid on them as property.

According to Alexey Gavrishev, the Constitutional Court emphasized separately: protection is possible, but the burden of proof falls on the owner. The person must show where the crypt came from, on what basis it was used, what exactly was transferred and not returned. Dmitry Timchenko will have to do the same when the courts review his case.

— This is not an amnesty or a green light for gray schemes. This is the return of the crypt to the legal field," he said. — When the Constitutional Court talks about the need to clarify regulation, it hints at the main problem: cryptocurrency is already recognized as property, but the rules of its turnover and protection are still contradictory. The law does not provide a clear answer on the consequences of failure to notify, how tax duties and civil rights relate, and where the boundary between permissible turnover and prohibition lies.

As a result, the courts act on a whim — and more often prefer to refuse than to protect. The Constitutional Court made it clear that the rules should be clear and predictable.

What is the difference between crypto and mining and from buying

The ruling of the Constitutional Court in the Timchenko case is a landmark event that radically changes the approach to protecting the rights of digital currency holders in Russia, agreed Vladimir Kuznetsov, Vice President of the Association of Lawyers for Registration, Liquidation, Bankruptcy and Judicial Representation.

"It is fundamentally different from current practice in that it has separated the legal consequences for miners and for ordinary purchasers of cryptocurrencies," he said. — The court recognized the requirement to inform the tax service legally for those who engage in mining, as it allows the state to control a decentralized asset. However, for individuals who have purchased digital currency, the refusal of judicial protection only on the basis of the absence of notification of the Federal Tax Service is considered unconstitutional.

At the same time, many expected that the Constitutional Court in its decision would equate stablecoins, in this case USDT tokens, to digital currency, added Mikhail Bozhor, CEO of Afonin, Bozhor and Partners law firm.

Unfortunately, these hopes did not come true — stablecoins are still in the "gray zone" of Russian legislation, he noted. — The court explicitly stated that regulation applies only to traditional cryptocurrencies, however, even if stablecoins are designated as cryptocurrencies in the contract, this does not invalidate the contract, and its parties do not have judicial protection.

The court deliberately did not give a final legal assessment of the USDT, calling them only "digital values." The Constitutional Court pointed out that such issues should be resolved by the courts taking into account specific circumstances, effectively leaving room for further regulation and the position of the Bank of Russia, said Valeria Gziryan, senior associate at the fintech, Intellectual Property and Technology Practice at BGP Litigation.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court not only abolished the unconstitutional practice, but also gave direct instructions to the federal legislator to amend the current regulation, experts noted.

What does the court's Decision Mean for the Crypto Industry

Already today, cryptocurrency is recognized as property not only for tax purposes, but also in the context of criminal and procedural law. This is especially important considering that the volume of investments of individuals in crypto assets is estimated at trillions of rubles. The development of balanced regulation, especially in the field of industrial mining, has proven to be economically effective, strengthening the ruble and creating new technological industries, said Andrey Loboda, top communications manager in the field of digital currencies and industrial mining.

At the same time, according to him, for the full protection of investors and the "whitewashing" of the market, a national digital infrastructure is needed — Russian crypto exchanges, platforms and banks. In the meantime, key elements such as mining pools remain out of control, creating legal holes. The COP's decision is a signal for systematic work, not a targeted measure, the expert added.

The practice of transferring cryptocurrencies to management, as Dmitry Timchenko did, is quite common today, especially among retail investors, said Denis Astafyev, an entrepreneur, fund manager and founder of the SharesPro fintech platform. As a rule, such transactions are informal, concluded without licenses and clear legal mechanisms, which initially makes them vulnerable. The most commonly used schemes are pseudo-investment, trust management, copy trading and various forms of collective investments, which are accompanied by high risks of fraud, loss of control over assets, hacking and theft of funds.

It is against this background that the decision of the Constitutional Court can significantly affect the market. It increases legal certainty and reduces the feeling of complete insecurity of cryptocurrency owners, stimulating a more accurate and legal circulation of digital assets. In addition, there is a basis for reviewing previous court decisions, which also strengthens confidence in the legal system regarding cryptospores, Denis Astafyev emphasized.