Legal status of cryptocurrency in CIS-countries

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the current state and prospects of further legislative regulation of the legal status of cryptocurrency in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. According to the analysis of the current legal framework in these countries, the author notes that the regulation of legal status and cryptocurrency transactions in the CIS countries is heterogeneous - from the level of adjustment of existing codifications of civil law and the adoption of special legislation on legal regulation of innovative financial instruments to only by-laws or in the absence of special legislation at all, including a deliberate (but for various reasons) refusal to normalize this legal phenomenon. In the latter case, countries apply to cryptocurrency transactions the current tools of civil, tax, administrative and criminal law (depending on public policy in this area), which does not fully correspond to the novelty of this legal phenomenon, and thus leads to legal uncertainty and legal conflicts of private persons with the state. The author states that the countries of the union use different practices to regulate this legal phenomenon: from completely restrictive, to partially restrictive (with the possibility of mining and operations outside national jurisdic-tion) or completely liberal. There are no common approaches of the CIS countries to understanding the legal status of cryptocurrencies as an object of civil rights - depending on the country, they are classified as digital (virtual) assets, other property, property rights. The author emphasizes that almost all the states of the union deny the possi-bility of using cryptocurrencies as means of payment and units of account (except for the payment for the services of cryptocurrency exchanges in the countries where they exist). As a result, the author concludes that attempts to unify the legal regulation of the status and circulation of cryptocurrencies in the CIS countries are currently unsuccessful, which, according to the author, is explained by different levels of democratization of domestic political life and eco-nomic structure of CIS countries as well as by their acceptance of different legal traditions (Western and Chinese).