Foreign litigators advising clients with Russian-nexus digital asset claims have, until recently, operated in near-total uncertainty about how Russian courts would treat cryptocurrency as a recoverable and traceable asset. A series of decisions issued by Russian state courts in the period leading to mid-2026 has begun to resolve that uncertainty — not comprehensively, but enough to alter the working assumptions that foreign counsel should bring to these instructions. The decisions address the threshold question of whether digital assets constitute property for the purposes of civil enforcement, the procedural mechanism for freeze orders over cryptocurrency wallets, and the evidentiary standards applied to blockchain forensics presented as tracing evidence. The answers are consequential for any firm instructing local counsel in Russia on a recovery matter involving digital assets.
The central legal question in this line of decisions concerns the civil characterisation of digital assets under Russian law. Russian civil legislation was amended to recognise digital rights — including digital financial assets and utility digital tokens — as objects of civil rights, placing them within the broader category of property for enforcement purposes. What the legislation left unresolved was the procedural question: how does a claimant actually freeze, identify, or recover a digital asset held in a wallet, and what standard of proof does a Russian court require before it will act on blockchain tracing evidence? These were the questions that a series of enforcement and asset recovery proceedings — most initiated by trade creditors or insolvency administrators seeking to trace funds transferred out of insolvent estates — placed before Russian arbitrazh courts and, ultimately, on appeal before the circuit courts. The matters involved respondent companies that had transferred value into cryptocurrency in the period preceding formal insolvency proceedings, with foreign creditors or their local counterparts seeking to recover that value as part of the broader estate.
The courts in these proceedings reached several conclusions that, taken together, constitute a meaningful shift in the Russian enforcement landscape for digital asset tracing and cryptocurrency recovery. First, Russian arbitrazh courts confirmed that digital financial assets held in identified wallets are capable of being subject to interim freeze orders under the civil procedure rules governing asset preservation. The courts treated wallet addresses — when supported by blockchain analysis linking them to the respondent — as sufficient identification of the asset for the purposes of an interim application. Second, the courts engaged substantively with blockchain forensics evidence for the first time in published decisions. Courts accepted expert reports produced by recognised blockchain analytics providers as admissible evidence, although the evidentiary weight given to that material varied between instances and circuits. The prevailing approach, as it emerges from the pattern of decisions, requires the tracing analysis to satisfy a chain-of-custody standard: the expert must demonstrate an unbroken analytical path from the respondent's known wallet to the target address. Third, where a Russian-domiciled exchange held the relevant assets, the courts issued disclosure and freezing orders directly against the exchange as a third-party holder — a procedural step that mirrors asset-freezing practice in other jurisdictions but had not previously been applied to digital assets in the Russian context. The position with respect to non-custodial wallets and foreign-domiciled exchanges remains substantially unsettled, and counsel should not assume that the same procedural tools are available in those circumstances.
"What these decisions establish is a workable entry point for digital asset tracing claims in Russian courts — but the procedural architecture is still forming, and the variation between circuits is material enough that choice of forum and timing of the freeze application remain critical tactical questions." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
If you are instructing Russian counsel on a matter involving digital asset recovery or a Russian court digital asset cryptocurrency ruling — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
For law firms advising clients with Russian-nexus digital asset and cryptocurrency tracing claims, these decisions change the calculus in three respects. First, it is now viable — not merely theoretically arguable — to seek a Russian asset freeze over cryptocurrency wallets held at a Russian-registered exchange, provided the tracing analysis meets the chain-of-custody standard the courts have articulated. Firms instructing Russian lawyers on foreign firm instructions should factor in the quality and format of the blockchain forensics report from the outset: Russian courts have shown willingness to engage with this material, but they are not yet practised in evaluating it, which places a premium on expert reports that are structured for a non-specialist judicial audience. Second, the timing of the freeze application is critical. The decisions confirm that Russian courts will grant interim freeze orders on an ex parte basis where there is a credible risk of dissipation — but the window between the identification of the wallet address and the respondent becoming aware of the tracing activity is narrow. In at least one matter in which the firm acted for a foreign trade creditor in parallel enforcement proceedings, the value of early-stage blockchain analysis was in enabling a freeze application before the assets were moved to a non-custodial wallet. Third, firms should advise clients on the circuit-level variation that currently exists. The West Siberian circuit and the Moscow circuit have, in parallel, addressed digital asset tracing questions, but their approaches to the evidentiary standard are not yet fully harmonised. Local counsel selection and, where there is a choice, forum selection should take account of the emerging circuit jurisprudence. The position under the Asset Tracing & Recovery practice framework at the firm reflects this circuit-level mapping. For the broader analytical context, see also the firm's analysis of the Russian Supreme Court clarification on digital assets and the practical guide to digital asset and cryptocurrency tracing in Russia.
Q: What does this ruling change?
A: The decisions confirm, for the first time in a consistent pattern, that Russian arbitrazh courts will treat digital financial assets as property capable of being frozen and recovered through civil enforcement procedure. Before this line of decisions, the civil characterisation of digital assets was acknowledged in legislation but had not been consistently applied at the procedural level. The practical change is that a creditor can now seek an interim freeze order over a cryptocurrency wallet held at a Russian-registered exchange — provided the tracing analysis satisfies the chain-of-custody standard the courts have adopted — and the courts will act on that application. The evidentiary framework for blockchain forensics evidence is still developing, and the position with respect to non-custodial wallets and foreign-domiciled exchanges remains uncertain, but the threshold question of whether digital assets are recoverable has been answered affirmatively.
Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this decision?
A: Foreign creditors and the firms instructing Russian lawyers on their behalf should take three practical steps. First, ensure that any blockchain forensics analysis commissioned for a Russian-nexus matter is structured to meet the chain-of-custody standard the courts have described — this means the expert report should demonstrate an unbroken analytical path and be written for a judicial audience unfamiliar with blockchain methodology. Second, consider the timing of any freeze application carefully: the window between identification of the target wallet and potential dissipation of assets is narrow, and the procedural route to an ex parte order is now established. Third, verify that local counsel has experience with the circuit-level variation in how different Russian courts are approaching digital asset tracing evidence, as the approach is not yet uniform across jurisdictions. Early engagement with Russian counsel on the forensics preparation — before litigation is formally commenced — is likely to be determinative.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.
The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice advises foreign creditors, insolvency practitioners, and the law firms instructing them on tracing and enforcement matters in Russian state courts. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines substantive knowledge of Russian civil enforcement procedure with direct partner and senior-lawyer involvement on every engagement. The firm works in English and provides English-language court documents and case updates as a matter of course.
Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom
If your firm is advising a client with a Russian-nexus digital asset or cryptocurrency recovery claim — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.
— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/