Blockchain Papers

Tigran Mkrtchyan

The enforcement of extraterritorial financial sanctions has historically relied on the structural centralization of correspondent banking networks, primarily utilizing U.S. dollar clearing mechanisms as a territorial nexus for prescriptive jurisdiction. This paper examines how the advent of wholesale Central Bank Digital Currencies (wCBDCs) and distributed ledger technology (DLT) structurally dismantles this transit-layer vulnerability. By facilitating atomic, peer-to-peer settlement in tokenized sovereign assets, DLT-based platforms eliminate the intermediary clearing layer, thereby extinguishing the objective territoriality required for traditional primary sanctions enforcement under statutes such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Recognizing this technological bypass, the paper argues that sanctioning authorities are executing a strategic regulatory pivot from automated transit chokepoints toward localized endpoint coercion. This shift relies on secondary sanctions deployed against domestic interfaces, leveraging an institution's macroeconomic reliance on the broader U.S. dollar ecosystem. Furthermore, the paper contextualizes this transition within the collapse of multilateral dispute resolution at the World Trade Organization, positing that institutional paralysis has accelerated a technological flight to sovereign ledgers. Ultimately, the transition to decentralized digital currency blocs redefines international economic law, transforming extraterritorial coercion into a localized conflict of defensive statutes and symmetric economic statecraft.

Mohammed Al Ghafari, Badar Al Alawi, Idris Aal Jumaa, Salah Al Awaidy

Background/Objectives: Oman Vision 2040, the national blueprint for socio-economic transformation, aims to elevate the Sultanate to developed nation status, with the “Health” priority committed to building a “Leading Healthcare System with International Standards” via a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. This paper critically reviews Oman’s strategic health directions and implementation frameworks under Vision 2040, assessing their alignment with global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and serving as a case model for health system transformation. Methods: This study employs a critical narrative synthesis based on a comprehensive literature search that included academic, official government reports, and international organization sources. The analysis is guided by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Systems Framework, providing a structured interpretation of progress across its six building blocks. Results: Key interventions implemented include integrated governance (e.g., Committee for Managing and Regulating Healthcare), diversified health financing (e.g., public private partnership (PPPs), Health Endowment Foundation), and strategic digital transformation (e.g., Al-Shifa system, AI diagnostics). Performance metrics show progress, with a rise in the Legatum Prosperity Index ranking and an increase in the Community Satisfaction Rate. However, critical challenges persist, including resistance to change during governance restructuring, cybersecurity risks from digital adoption, and system fragmentation that complicates a unified Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) response. Conclusions: Oman’s integrated approach, emphasizing decentralization, quality improvement, and investment in preventive health and human capital, positions it for sustained progress. The transformation offers generalizable insights. Successfully realizing Vision 2040 demands rigorous, evidence-informed policymaking to effectively address equity implications and optimize resource allocation.

Magnus Strand

The cases reported concern the assignment of claims to third-party litigators, limitation periods, and the consequences of the competition law concept of a ‘single economic unit’ with regard to the jurisdiction of national courts under the Brussels I bis Regulation. For example, in ASG 2, the Court of Justice was asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member States, but allowed the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on the matter. Another example was Heureka, in which the Court of Justice ruled that EU law precludes national rules on the limitation of follow-on damages actions if they do not provide for the limitation period to be suspended, at the very least, until one year after the date on which the public enforcement decision finding an infringement has become final. As the case law develops, we gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition law that will, in turn, further increase incentives to seek compensation for harm caused by infringements. This survey reports developments in private enforcement of EU competition law in the years 2024 and 2025, up until 31 May of the latter year. As there have been no news in EU regulation during this period, the report focuses on case law developments. Private enforcement of competition law takes the form of civil litigation. As a consequence, it falls under the jurisdictions of national courts and will only find its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through references for a preliminary ruling. For the purposes of this report, this also means there have been many cases before national courts that will be interesting but cannot be covered here. To offer just two examples, the infamous trucks cartel1 and the Booking.com infringement2 have both given rise to an array of damages claims across European jurisdictions.3 The CJEU case law to be reported mainly concerns three core aspects that will each be covered in one of the sections below. First, whether national law can preclude or restrict the possibility for victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their damages claim to a provider of legal services (a ‘third-party litigator’). This is an issue of fundamental importance to the business model of certain providers active in the private enforcement of competition law. Second, several cases referred to the Court of Justice have concerned limitation periods that apply to damages claims, whether or not the rule on limitation periods in the 2014 Competition Damages Directive4 is temporally applicable in the proceedings. A new case on this issue is reported below. Third, issues related to jurisdiction and other procedural the is an that both and and to the victims of the and core issues that have been further I will a for a preliminary which is before the Court of the of on damages the a and will be The and of for a of victims of an infringement of competition law is a business in the The business model on the of victims to assign their to claim damages to a will the claims and a of the damages if The case reported ASG concerned whether a national limitation of this was with EU law. As in in this it is that damages claims for an infringement of competition law and some form of collective and have that victims of the infringement have to The for will be for to with for each be a rather of actions by providers of legal services in for the collective of victims can to the of for and to This preliminary by a the in the of a for damages for harm caused by an infringement of The infringement in a of for by a of during the period to The victims of the in and The was The victims their to damages in of the infringement of competition law to a third-party ASG which in the proceedings. its to the national the the of a it was under law to assign to damages in a of for the purposes of a for this not been for harm caused by an infringement of competition law. the under the by the victims to the be the was also concerned whether an of law was with EU law. The referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary was in whether EU law precludes national law victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their to damages to a provider of legal The Court of Justice that EU law the possibility of actions for the of compensation but not for Member States to a for The Court of Justice to the referred under the EU law of the national its in to that As I will this is a to ASG with some this for the the issues in the case whether law collective that an to a for whether the for an it or to the to The Court that the of claims the and economic in actions for in the Court not in that it was to the of if victims to their claims the Court of Justice ruled that EU law an of national which the of victims of an infringement of competition law their to compensation to a provider of legal that a only if national law not provide for other possibility of the claims of victims that the of to and the of an for damages was or The Court of Justice not been asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member ASG is an The Court a to the the Member States a rather wide margin of The of only claims to the there no in national law that claims for certain in the that a for the to with First, the Court of Justice very that the national not it to other of EU law the of the Court the to also the to in of the in its it not the of the national the of in its it is that it have been the Court of Justice to that actions for the of damages rather and under and that it they be available in follow-on the of the actions on EU law not be actions under national law. the Court of Justice has actions with a and the be in it rather that the of will for actions for the of damages to be available in actions if they available in follow-on actions for damages by of an infringement of competition law. The of also to the if actions for the of damages available for other actions under that the actions have a and the of the 2014 Competition Damages there have been several cases in which the Court of Justice has been to the of national limitation periods with the rules of the with or and of EU law. several the core issue has been at in the rules in the temporally in other to the EU law before the 2014 Competition Damages to EU law under that This has been an issue in to of the which its rules on limitation of damages issues in the case law have been the a that on which date the applicable national limitation period can to and under limitation periods be or A new to this of the case law. This one of many cases of its in the of is also a by in the of in of The Court of Justice has not its in the latter this the legal issues will be covered in of the cases on limitation periods in competition damages actions is in which the Court of Justice ruled that and the of preclude a limitation period to if the was of the of the not possibility of or that period during before the national competition As we will the and in Heureka, the that its by its services to the of services This by the of to to The before the of the 2014 Competition Damages on and after the of the for the of the rules of the national law on that claim was under the applicable limitation rules of the at with regard to the period to The limitation period was three and to the the or have of the harm and the of the to of the a limitation period of The the asked the Court of Justice whether EU and in of the and the of preclude a national limitation period applicable to actions for damages for an infringement of competition which to the or be to have that it harm and the of the to compensation for the and which is not during public enforcement it was not whether the 2014 Competition Damages be applicable in the the Court of Justice the a issue a of the of and that the Court that the of the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of competition law be or if the limitation periods applicable to actions to before the infringement to an and the not or not have been to the for its for The Court an two to the by the national The of the was that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an The Court of Justice that a was in to it for the to its of in to the of an the of and the the the Court and there is an to the of the The Court with in that the that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an an to their The of the was that limitation periods cannot to before the or be to the for its for The at the Court of Justice of an infringement of competition the of the that harm and that and the of the the Court with the of a decision the infringement at issue in the EU if the decision was under This was a decision has it has not been and can on the decision to their for damages the the Court also it is in some that gain the at an it be for the in the damages to that the the at an in the case that limitation periods in actions for competition damages cannot to until be the of the infringement of competition law and of the for an for damages with the for the a in of the 2014 Competition Damages As a of in Heureka, there is very the and for damages actions by of an infringement of EU competition at damages actions a decision it is that the is not or it is whether it is the Court of Justice is law in a which very the rules in the the Court is the of the rules in the to law This is not but it is The of the is that it and legal the and to be but consequences for the the Court a in not to across the rules and of for rules that by the EU of this the and the case law is also new and very that will apply under the 2014 Competition Damages they have been on a of law. For a rule of on a can be to the of of the that a certain an infringement of competition a decision on the is will have This the Court to the possibility for the to that the at an The case concerns the but in the has been national public enforcement of competition law. in has that the core of the case is at a will have of the which that to an for for the purposes of follow-on the claim the can on a decision that is of legal the of the the a be on the date the national decision has become we that in the decision not to be final. that it the of legal and the of follow-on in the of to for the national decision to be this is to the of the in Heureka, the of the was not whether the decision was but whether it the infringement to the of The legal by the be by rules on the or of limitation periods in damages actions during public enforcement proceedings. This to the legal Heureka, the Court of Justice also whether and the of for the limitation period to be or during this the Court that the or of limitation periods for the of in to to their actions for the Court also it was not to to or limitation periods during an of the the decision by the be by the if it not of the Court provide an example of a to the rule in of the 2014 Competition Damages that the at the one year after the infringement decision has become or is or national infringement under the and the of do not the limitation period to to be until the the decision this I to the of in that national be a for the a As I for the purposes of the I that the by the form a for the national limitation period until the national decision has become final. The of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages on the of its rules or the of its of the not apply that not apply to that have to an before the national rules rules not apply to damages claims which a national was to other the of rules on the infringement has and on the national rules the of other rules on and the Court ruled that a and not be with but also that an for damages which is after the of the national it national law the of if the national limitation period not before the of the for of the The consequences of this further in the Court of Justice the national limitation period by that the national the of rules on limitation periods, that have the the national its of the claim by this and that the infringement not on the Court further that it its that the limitation period not have to on that As a consequence, of the 2014 Competition Damages was in temporally applicable to and to be that the Court that it was for the national to the rule in to the Court of case law on the of rules in the of the limitation period, through the of to the of the rule in I to that it is a in to the and of the in Heureka, which the for on the of this has with the on in and will the The private enforcement of competition law in issues of jurisdiction and that can be the case law of the Court of Justice on and several a of a economic has for to their the in The Court has a in its case but in the cases reported they also some to their in a case the Court has not its preliminary is also The issues at in cases to the concept of the the the of of the Brussels I bis in to the competition law concept of a economic to the rule on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in to the concept of a ‘single economic and to to a a economic issues will be covered in For damages claims, of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the the or a of or a of trucks the the The was the in the that the the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The was the Court of and the legal issue in its concerned The on of the Brussels I bis and it and its a economic its be covered by the concept of the the the of harm by that economic only its in other Member States in to have harm and the not to have The claim on a of the economic its the Court of Justice that in it that of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to Member States on the of whether the by an infringement of competition law is in that Member that not consequences can be will be and that consequences of harm the by the Court of Justice that there was no in its case law for the of the economic by the The Court further that the of the was at with the of the Brussels I bis an of the of and of the rules and that victims of an infringement of competition law other the Court that the concept of a economic not be to jurisdiction in the by the The that the Court of Justice have been in its of the economic to private enforcement of competition it is not to will be and the by the in this case was a to the claims a of and this can be in but at the of the the rule is that jurisdiction is at the or of the jurisdiction is under the rules of the Brussels I bis and case but jurisdiction is not it be to that is a of the of the latter an is several of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the one of is the claims that it is to and to the of This is in damages claim several and the is a of or a of that form a economic the of competition law. the core issue was whether a national its in an for damages a and its and for an infringement of competition by on the of the and in case law. The in the in and its in the The in was a to on the The competition that its on the but not it that been in the infringement or a the decision by the competition an for damages and before a in the jurisdiction to claims its that and and for harm caused to by the infringement by the competition there was in the to whether the courts jurisdiction in of to whether of the Brussels I bis preclude courts on the a or or of the of the that the competition a a the in to their jurisdiction This issue its way to the the Court of the and was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. For to be applicable it was the Court to whether there was a of a that it was to the actions in to the of The Court further that the whether the of law and with regard to the claims the and that the not been before it with an to the in on case law its in the Court that the of whether the of law and with regard to the claims the be several in a and infringement of competition law that been by the the by the Court that this also the a economic and of the the of competition law and and for the harm the Court of Justice that it was not in to have jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis for and several to have been in a the whether the in and the for the which was was The was also concerned with the for the of a and that the Court of Justice that the not only in public enforcement but also in private enforcement of competition law and that the concept of an was the in both the Court that to its jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis a national not a of the or of the but to the for regard to a that in the the Court that the to that a by the its cannot be a in to its The do the Court if the on the of the and an to the to the not or or of the of its or that that be the Court of Justice ruled that of the Brussels I bis not preclude the for the of of a in to its on the that a or or of the of a that has competition it a that that the not of the possibility of that that not or or of the of that or that that be the of this the for jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis by the Court of Justice in is The of its is that if the the of the the of competition and the has jurisdiction to actions at one of the in there also be a possibility for the to the but this requires this the to this is an in private enforcement in which is to the of both and The of the and with regard to the infringement is a in the of this and the in be the and through EU for actions by across EU jurisdictions also be an is several at a certain which only have jurisdiction to actions one of an to the claims the at that one that the in the The through which jurisdiction is for is referred to the in the that it for the before the at two and of the Court of Justice is to further on of the Brussels I bis and in to the a to the with the is no in the cases but has an on the The in the two a of in several that have been of and both follow-on The case a a in and and related and The case a decision by the competition on a in and covered several European jurisdictions and several at economic the of competition law. both cases only one the of that was in the actions was a has competition cannot an for damages of its to on the and several of a economic have the of that and do have the and legal and there is a the economic of that and the of the infringement by the the to of the Brussels I bis the to the that there several they can be in a national jurisdiction for one of that claims that it is to and to the of that regard it not that the in the infringement in and at but it that they in an infringement that been by the and that the was on their in that The in the that the national not have the the no of The that not be and that there was no jurisdiction under that rule if there that the only the for its the that a not be concerns that the be but only if it or or of to the As to whether the was in this the by the that harm the was not through an on EU that the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages and that the in one of the not have a it was only a and the the that the Court of Justice has not been given to rule on if under the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of EU competition law to harm in but not that the in the be or for a of jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis the the the of the by to the of the Court of Justice in the in the and of not to on the in a way to offer and the of a to be of the of the a the it that the was a of the which was for the infringement of competition law. The in turn, in that in to a to the the of the the of a the on whether its was in an economic which a to the of the infringement for which its of the been in the of the by the to the of of the Brussels I bis Regulation. whether the claims the and the the of of the Brussels I bis for the national to have jurisdiction of and whether that have in a infringement of the EU of a the claims and of the with which they each form an that of a the economic of the and the of the infringement by the be but that it not for the to have to the the that the of of the Brussels I bis there that the which they of the of law which have an infringement of the of in EU that it cannot be a that the to the that the of foreseeability not be that be to that they be in the jurisdiction of and not preclude this of the that with the that a in the of the can be an but that an to was to be the Court of Justice will the For it the in of the in it to its on the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages it is that the Court will not the of the referred the but rather in to a the not to be with the and the Court of Justice was asked to whether a to be to a economic which an of competition law. The in the two trucks the in The to that the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The an for damages with the and that the to was to be to the in The national the in with the but the was with a to the of the in The that this was a in and that the the it and its of a economic the of competition law. The issue of whether the be through its its way to the the Court of and to the Court of its the Court of Justice under its case law and in its in a economic a the of and legal that can be for an if by legal the Court an the of has no legal of its an for damages cannot be the but be a legal the Court of Justice the of and of is a under the to in of the EU of fundamental that the Court find no or in EU law for the that a an for damages one legal an and have the to legal the the the Court of Justice the to a by of the the if it been to have and it not be that legal a economic to on each The Court of Justice the of EU on and on the of The Court that related to the of be by the but that EU certain to the and that can be if the is The Court also that it be to to their a of the if the to the related to in Member the Court of Justice ruled that a cannot be with a to a if the two of the economic The of is that under the case law on a economic under competition to a of their a the of which is or the its this not can the the of for the has been that will have consequences for the of and this cannot be through to the concept of a economic The Court that of competition law by of the and the and it that the and of an of the of which cannot be with to the concept of a economic this case was a and the that there to on the concept of a ‘single economic unit’ the Court will is an of an of damages under the 2014 Competition Damages under the case law of the Court of The on by a of national law and EU which the Court is to in the referred This for a preliminary was by the Court of Justice on and no is The before the of and it is damages in to the trucks in which the compensation for to the The concerns the of in the 2014 Competition Damages and in the of on the damages The also concerns to on which date harm has by of an infringement of competition law. the the has been at a of the date for damages was to the under national the claim The that be the date harm the of the will be to on the date which to on the damages in the proceedings. will be interesting to this there is no EU case law on issues in the of competition damages For the purposes of an for damages a Member the Court of Justice has that on an is the date harm was This was in a competition damages which that the Court it in competition of the 2014 Competition damages be the the harm until the compensation is is this is rather and a through be is very to private enforcement in the EU to case law on actions for private enforcement is by there can be concerns this and whether it be issues under in the and Justice and a report and the for third-party in ASG 2, reported the Court of Justice the of the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on whether or not to claims for competition damages to be to a third-party I have that the of which was not in the to other on the legal in the Member at will be interesting to the further of EU in to third-party law on the of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages also to The case law has on the of certain rules and on to the of rules also and and of EU law. Heureka, and through we a of limitation which is to be after the rather of the Court in and will also be very interesting to the on we a on that in is also very that we on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in of the concept of an in competition in This case law further to their procedural if the Court of Justice is also it in the reported cases and that not but that for the of both be As we to gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition we will also increase incentives to seek in turn, further case law the Court of very for with an in the

Weimin Wang, Martin Enilov, Petar Stankov

This study examines whether cryptocurrency markets offer more resilient safe haven properties than gold for stock markets in the BRICS economies from 28th April 2013 to 27th September 2024. Unlike traditional studies that primarily focus on Bitcoin or top-market cap cryptocurrencies , we introduce a novel Crypto index that includes 9468 active and defunct cryptocurrencies, providing a comprehensive view of daily market fluctuations across all listed crypto assets. We also investigate the impact of the Russia-Ukraine military conflict on the safe haven status of these assets. Using a time-varying robust Granger causality framework, we analyse the dynamic relationships between potential safe haven assets and BRICS stocks. Additionally, we explore the network structure of gold, cryptocurrencies, and BRICS stocks across different quantiles . Our results show limited evidence of time-invariant causality, but strong evidence of time-varying causality, suggesting that neither gold nor cryptocurrencies act as safe havens for BRICS stocks over the entire sample period. We find increased market interconnectedness during extreme conditions, with gold and cryptocurrencies initially acting as net receivers of shocks, but gold shifting to a net transmitter during the conflict, indicating stronger safe haven properties for gold. Portfolios favour gold over crypto, and small-cap cryptocurrencies are cheaper but less efficient hedges compared to large-cap cryptos, with Bitcoin emerging as the optimal investment for returns. These findings offer valuable insights for investors and policymakers, particularly for optimizing portfolio management and supporting financial stability during market turbulence.

Abdulkadir Nacar

No abstract is available for this record.

Dirin Mchirgui, Mohammed Ali Sulyman Digheem, Fawzi Salem Adwela

This paper explores the interconnectedness and spillover relationships among Bitcoin, gold, gold-backed cryptocurrencies, and energy commodities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine military conflict. Using a quantile connectedness approach, we reveal diverse influence dynamics among digital assets, with Gold, DGX, and PAXG emerging as key contributors to the network’s total connectedness. Notably, the cTCI/TCI ratio underscores substantial direct linkages, emphasizing significant interconnections among digital assets. DGX acts as a principal information transmitter, while gas plays a crucial role as a primary receiver, suggesting its potential as a diversifier. The time-quantile analysis highlights heightened connectedness during significant events, providing valuable insights for investors and risk managers. Results underscore varying roles of assets, with PAXG persistently acting as a net transmitter and Bitcoin and Gold displaying nuanced patterns. Interestingly, Gold demonstrated certain safe haven characteristics only during the Russia-Ukraine war. The time-frequency analysis at the median quantile emphasizes the dominance of short-term dynamics, prompting the need for adaptive risk management strategies. Overall, this study facilitates a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, offering practical insights for different periods.

Riadh Benammar, Anas Elmelki, Nadia Arfaoui, Adel Boubaker

ABSTRACT This paper investigates how the geopolitical risk (GPRD), economic policy uncertainty (EPU) index, and Twitter economic uncertainty (TEU) related to the Russo‐Ukrainian conflict can affect cryptocurrency returns (Bitcoin [BTC], Ethereum [ETH], Ripple [XRP], Dogecoin [DOGE], Litecoin [LTC], Cardano [ADA], BNB, and TRON [TRX]) over the period ranging from January 1, 2020, to April 24, 2023. Using the Spectral Breitung Candelon causality and wavelet coherence methods, interesting findings are reported. This study reports noteworthy findings. First, we observe that during the armed battle, ADA, BNB, DOGE, LTC, TRX, and XRP appear as hedges against GPRD. However, we found a negative impact on BTC and ETH. Second, the results show that EPU and TEU have no effect on cryptocurrency, respectively. These findings provide a comprehensive overview of cryptocurrency fluctuations during the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine. Finally, findings show that only ADA, BNB, DOGE, LTC, TRX, and XRP could be used as hedging tools during times of uncertainty. These results have practical implications for cryptocurrency investors and elements influencing its returns, especially during uncertain times.

Muhammad Shahzad Ijaz, Shoaib Ali, Anna Min Du, Mahrukh Khurram

We use event study methodology to examine how the Palestine-Israel Conflict affected equities, metals, energy, fiat, and crypto currencies. The findings highlight the susceptibility of the stock markets in Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait to geopolitical shocks by demonstrating notable negative abnormal returns on the event day. This observation is more evident in areas which have direct economic connections to the belligerent nations. Conversely, the fiat and cryptocurrency markets, along with metals and oil, exhibit insignificant abnormal returns, with the exception of a strong reaction observed in Ethereum and oil prices. These findings highlight the fluctuating levels of sensitivity across diverse asset classes as markets beyond Palestine's trading partners demonstrate resilience to the war. Overall, our work underscores the significance of assessing contagion risk especially in areas affected by geopolitical instability. It also holds implications for policymakers and investors to contemplate the geopolitical situation while evaluating market risks and portfolio diversification strategies amid political tensions.

Nicolin Decker

No abstract is available for this record.

J M de Almeida, Tiago Gonçalves

• Cryptocurrencies serve as alternative safe havens during geopolitical conflicts. • Cryptocurrencies exhibit increased liquidity and interconnectedness during war periods. • Crypto assets gain significance as strategic tools amid global economic sanctions. This study examines the role of cryptocurrencies in modern War, specifically during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a Time-Varying Parameter Vector Autoregression (TVP-VAR) model, the research assesses the dynamic financial behaviors of cryptocurrencies, focusing on changes in liquidity, safe haven status, and their use in circumventing economic sanctions. The analysis distinguishes financial behaviors across three distinct phases: Pre-Conflict, Conflict, and financial sanctions periods, highlighting the interaction between cryptocurrencies and traditional financial markets. The findings indicate shifts in the role of cryptocurrencies from net transmitters to net receivers of spillovers in both returns and volatility, particularly during the financial sanctions phase. This study provides insights into the integration of cryptocurrencies with traditional financial assets and their potential impact on local economies during military conflicts. The results document the increased liquidity and interconnectedness of cryptocurrencies during military conflict periods and explore their potential use in evading sanctions and supporting War efforts.

А Д Керимов, Vladislav V. Krasinsky

The article discusses the problem of counteracting the financing of anti-Russian decentralized sabotage and terrorist activities of network structures. The authors analyze the illegal activities of founders, coordinators, sponsors, and beneficiaries of sabotage and terrorist network movements in online platforms and Internet messengers. The work provides the criminal and criminological characteristic of decentralized sabotage and terrorist activities. The article presents changes in terrorist tactics and modern mechanisms for financing sabotage and terrorist activities using cryptocurrencies, taking into account the high-tech present-day terrorism, the introduction of distributed financing mechanisms and resource provision of sabotage and terrorist activities. It also demonstrates the relationship between anti-Russian subversive and terrorist networks and Ukrainian special agencies, as well as the involvement of a number of Ukrainian financial institutions and virtual asset service providers in quasi-legal financial schemes, money laundering, and terrorist financing.

Ijaz Younis, Anna Min Du, Himani Gupta, Waheed Ullah Shah

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) assets, commodities, and Islamic stock market cointegration are affected by technological innovations, market dynamics, investor behavior, and crises. This study investigates the dynamics of returns and volatility for three DeFi assets, six commodities, and three Islamic stock markets from December 2019, to March, 2023, and identifies higher spillover effects during crises. Links among the Cross-DeFi, commodity, and Islamic markets significantly influence returns and volatility during crises. Notably, the commodities index emerged as a pivotal and substantial transmitter of risk during the Russian-Ukraine war crisis, with Emerging Markets (EM) being a key recipient. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, livestock indices assume the role of prominent risk-return spillover receivers. The findings indicate robust returns and volatility interconnected between DeFi assets and Islamic markets with a moderate level of connectivity among commodity groups. WDI, ACWI, and EM explained 75 % of the variance observed during crisis episodes. This study formulates strategic portfolio management within and between connectedness among return volatilities by highlighting the stability of DeFi assets, the diversification potential in commodities, and a balanced option in Islamic markets. Our study provides a deep and insightful understanding of the stakeholders across markets during crises. • Notable spillovers in DeFi, commodities, and Islamic markets during crises. • Commodities drove risk during the Russian-Ukraine war, affecting Emerging Markets. • DeFi stability, commodity diversification, and Islamic market balance guide crisis management.

Hongjun Zeng, Abdullahi D. Ahmed, Ran Lu

Abstract This paper investigates the volatility connectedness and dynamic time–frequency relationship between Bitcoin (BTC) and 15 major agricultural commodity markets during the COVID‐19 and 2022 Russia–Ukraine war periods. We employ the TVP‐VAR‐based extended joint connectedness method, minimum connectedness investment portfolio, and wavelet coherence (WC) method. The results indicate that the sudden outbreaks of the two crises brought about increased volatility connectedness between BTC and agricultural commodity markets. Throughout the entire sample period, BTC remained a net transmitter of volatility. Moreover, in terms of the total connectedness index (TCI), the overall volatility correlation surged rapidly after the outbreak of COVID‐19 and the 2022 Russia–Ukraine war. The portfolio results demonstrated that BTC exhibited a low correlation with the agricultural commodity markets, suggesting diversification potential. Additionally, only Feeder Cattle served as an effective hedging asset for BTC throughout all periods. The WC analysis confirmed that during the COVID‐19 period and the 2022 Russia–Ukraine war, most of the linkages were primarily concentrated at medium‐ to long‐term frequencies. Our analysis will contribute to a deeper understanding of the interconnection between these markets, enabling market participants to consider risk mitigation measures and support portfolio diversification when formulating policies and regulations involving relevant markets in the future.

Muneer Shaik, Mustafa Raza Rabbani, Mohd Atif, Ahmet Faruk Aysan · 6 authors

We investigate the dynamic volatility connectedness of geopolitical risk, stocks, bonds, bitcoin, gold, and oil from January 2018 to April 2022 in this study. We look at connectivity during the Pre-COVID, COVID, and Russian-Ukraine war subsamples. During the COVID-19 and Russian-Ukraine war periods, we find that conventional, Islamic, and sustainable stock indices are net volatility transmitters, whereas gold, US bonds, GPR, oil, and bitcoin are net volatility receivers. During the Russian-Ukraine war, the commodity index (DJCI) shifted from being a net recipient of volatility to a net transmitter of volatility. Furthermore, we discover that bilateral intercorrelations are strong within stock indices (DJWI, DJIM, and DJSI) but weak across all other financial assets. Our study has important implications for policymakers, regulators, investors, and financial market participants who want to improve their existing strategies for avoiding financial losses.

Hind Alnafisah, Bashar Yaser Almansour, Wajih Elabed, Ahmed Jeribi

No abstract is available for this record.

Alexander Mironov

Countering and combating manifestations of terrorism and extremism is an urgent and priority task for law enforcement agencies. These provisions underlie the national security of the state, and the fight against manifestations of this kind of crime rightfully deserves the most serious attention. The article presents the prerequisites for the use of cryptocurrencies for criminal purposes, based on the features of its functioning and use. The role of cryptocurrencies in the financing of terrorist and extremist activities in the current international financial and economic environment is indicated. The main problems that law enforcement agencies have to face in identifying and suppressing criminal activity, the financing of which can be organized with the help of cryptocurrencies, are reflected. Substantiated points of view are presented regarding the danger of the spread of cryptocurrencies in crimes of this direction, not only in relation to the Russian Federation, but also to the world community as a whole. The author presents statistical data of the indicated areas of crime and analyzes it. The results of a study by third-party organizations specializing in research in the field of cryptocurrencies are also presented and summarized. Examples of the use of cryptocurrencies to finance terrorist and extremist activities are noted. The ways of solving the presented problems are proposed, taking into account the mechanisms already proposed by scientists for preventing crimes using cryptocurrencies. In particular, the main emphasis is placed on the need to modernize the existing mechanisms of financial control and the reasonable involvement of representatives of large IT companies in this activity, since the main flow of information capable of exposing criminal activity is accumulated by them.

Nidhal Mgadmi, Tarek Sadraoui, Waleed Alkaabi, Ameni Abidi

This article examines the causal relationship between stock indices and cryptocurrencies during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. The econometric investigation covers the period from February 24, 2022 to April 12, 2023, and focuses on seven stock market indices (S&P 500, DAX, CAC40, Nikkei, TSX, MOEX, and PFTS) and seven cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dash, Ripple, DigiByte, and XEM). In this article, we investigate how investors react to fluctuations in financial assets and whether they seek safe havens in cryptocurrencies. We use dynamic causality in the Granger (1969) sense to detect a possible causal relationship in the short term, and seven models to estimate the long-term relationship between cryptocurrencies and financial assets. Our results show that in the short term, three famous cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple) and two digital assets with minor popularity (XEM and DigiByte) are impacted by the German, Russian, and Ukrainian stock markets. In the long term, we find a positive and significant effect of the American, Canadian, French and Ukrainian stock market indices on Bitcoin. These findings suggest that the stability of traditional financial markets during the current war period can be explained on the one hand by investors' fears of an unstable business climate, and on the other hand, by speculators' interest in new electronic products that are perceived as hedging instruments and safe havens in times of crisis.

Nidhal Mgadmi

Abstract This article examines the causal relationship between stock indices and cryptocurrencies during the current war between Russia and Ukraine. The econometric investigation runs from February 24, 2022 to April 12, 2023, focusing on seven stock market indices (S&P500, DAX, CAC40, Nikkei, TSX, MOEX and PFTS) and seven cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litcoin, Dash, Ripple, DigiByte and XEM). In this article, we try to understand how investors react to fluctuations in financial assets to seek safe havens in crypto currencies. We used dynamic causality in the Granger (1969) sense to detect a possible causal relationship in the short term, and seven models to estimate the long-term relationship between cryptocurrencies and financial assets. The causal relationship between financial market indexes and cryptocurrency coins in the short run indicate that three famous cryptocurrencies (BITCOIN, ETHEREUM, RIPPLE) and the two digital asset with minor popularity (XEM, Digibyte) are impacted by the German, Russian and Ukrainian stock markets. In the long-run we found a positive and significate effect of the American, Canadian, French and Ukrainian stock market indexes on Bitcoin. Thus, the stability of the traditional financial markets during the current war period can be explained on the one hand by investors’ fears of an unstable business climate, and on the other hand, by speculators’ sentiment towards new electronic products which are perceived as hedging instruments and a safe haven in the face of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. JEL Classifcation: C5 · C22 · G1

Md Rajib Kamal, Ranik Raaen Wahlstrøm

We examine the reactions of the cryptocurrency market to two events that occurred during the escalation of the Russia–Ukraine war in February 2022. Using hourly data, we find that the escalation exerted a negative influence on both liquidity and returns. Interestingly, the actual escalation triggered a more pronounced drop than the threat of escalation shortly before. This contrasts with the stock market, where threats of geopolitical events are found to have a greater impact. Post-escalation, we observe indications of increased demand for cryptocurrencies, potentially as a means to circumvent Western sanctions imposed on Russia or to provide aid to Ukraine.

Adrian COROBANĂ

Like any other major legal institutions in international law, international sanctions were created to face the challenges of the analogue world, not those of the digital world. Today, when international sanctions are in the foreground, due to the war of aggression in Ukraine, it is necessary to investigate to what extent financial sanctions (as a type of international sanctions) are also applied to cryptoassets and cryptocurrencies. These two blockchain based assets and currencies represent a way to evade the financial sanctions regime imposed by United Nations, European Union, United States of America, United Kingdom and any other states or entities? Providing examples from the recent practice of the states, through the case study method, and studying the legal doctrine in the field, the article analyses the effects that the absence of an international regulation of cryptocurrencies can have on the efficiency and effectiveness of financial sanctions regimes and tries to find some solutions possible.

Sanjeev Kumar, Reetika Jain, Narain, Faruk Balli · 5 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Summer Wright

When one country illegally invades another sovereign country, repeatedly, utilizing the mechanism of sanctions to try and curb the misconduct, has become a favored approach among democratic countries.Russia once again invaded Ukraine in the early part of 2022, defying all international pressure, to refrain from the illegal act.The rapid response from the international community was a litany of sanctions intended to cripple and deter Russia's actions.Sanctions evasions are not a new challenge for sanctioning countries and agencies.A United Nations (UN) report notes that low levels of governmental oversight in the cryptocurrency sector have enabled North Korea to generate income at an alarming rate.The efficacy of financial sanctions in this way is consistently undermined through illicit cryptocurrency transactions.As the cryptocurrency sphere exceeds forty-two million users worldwide, the question on those issuing sanctions remains: If cryptocurrency is left unregulated, will financial sanctions lose their power?This article will outline the use of sanctions as a preferred foreign policy tool and how they work.I look at the various sanctions the United States, European Union, United Nations have levied against the Russian Federation in response to repeated invasions of Ukraine's sovereign territory.I will also analyze cryptocurrency, defining what it is, how it works to lay the groundwork for the analysis of the current cryptocurrency regulations and how this relates to concerns of illicit activity within the cryptocurrency sphere, as a means for sanctions evasion.Several countries including The Russian Federation (Russia), The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela), The Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (North Korea) are using innovative cybercrimes and other crypto-based efforts to evade economic and financial sanctions.This article will consider the pushback on regulation from the crypto industry as well as illuminating the loopholes that are causing increased concern and current incidences of illicit activity internationally.Finally, I propose a few areas of consideration for creating an international regulatory framework to help combat the evasion of financial sanctions, using cryptocurrencies.

Mohammad Ashraful Ferdous Chowdhury, Mohammad Abdullah, Mansur Masih

This paper makes an initial attempt to investigate the risk spillover of the Russia-Ukraine war and oil price on Asian Islamic Stocks and bitcoin. We apply quantile-based connectedness measures using daily return data covering four Asian Islamic stock indices–oil, gold, bitcoin, and war panic–from February 1, 2022, to July 15, 2022. The results indicate higher connectedness in the upper and lower quantiles compared to the middle quantile, which implies that return shocks react more sharply during high war panic.

Levent ÖZDEMİR

Purpose- Sanctions, as an alternative to the use of military force, are used as a means of diplomatic coercion for the target country to abandon some of its decisions or avoid some possible practices. While half a century ago, sanctions included issues such as trade and travel restrictions and arms embargo, today the form and content of sanctions have changed significantly. In the last decade, most of the sanctions imposed on some states, especially to Iran and the Russian Federation, are financial sanctions. These financial sanctions, it is aimed to cut the target country's ties with the global financial markets, to disrupt the cash/capital inflow and outflow to the target country, to prevent trade by removing them from global payment systems such as SWIFT and to restrict some activities of central banks. However, the issue of whether cryptocurrencies, which we have heard frequently since 2009, can be used as a means of mitigating or overcoming the financial sanctions is frequently on the agenda. In this context, we analyze whether cryptocurrencies can be used to mitigate or overcome the financial sanctions imposed on the target country. Methodology- The size of the financial sanctions applied by the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and EU countries against the Russian Federation, after the war started in Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and the foreign money inflow/outflow volume needed by the Russian Federation as a result of its removal from the SWIFT system are compared with the volume of cryptocurrencies owned by the Russian Federation. Findings- The blockchain database system, which underpins cryptocurrencies, still struggles with a number of challenges. Especially the ability to increase the capacity (scalability) of the blockchain network is one of these problems. The scalability problem hinders the effective use of cryptocurrencies by the Russian Federation. In addition, when the financial transaction capacity and the size of the sanctions applied to the Russian Federation are compared with the crypto market size of the Russian Federation, it is seen that there is a significant difference in sizes. Conclusion- In today's conditions, cryptocurrencies stay away from the capacity to mitigate or overcome the financial sanctions applied to countries with large trading capacities such as the Russian Federation and to be used as a means of payment. However, in the coming years, in the case of developments in cryptocurrency technologies, cryptocurrencies have the capacity to be used to circumvent financial sanctions. Keywords: Sanctions, financial sanctions, payment instrument, crypto assets, blockchain. JEL Codes: F51, G20, B17