REGULATORY FRAGMENTATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR COMBATING CRYPTOASSET-RELATED CRIMES: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS

Nuriddin Khudoyberdiev

Authors

Nuriddin Khudoyberdiev LL.M., Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, USA; LL.M. and LL.B., Tashkent State University of Law, Uzbekistan.

Keywords:

regulatory fragmentation, cryptoassets, comparative law, virtual asset regulation, anti-money laundering, jurisdictional asymmetry, financial crime governance.

Abstract

The rapid expansion of cryptoasset markets has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global financial governance architecture: deep regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions. While international bodies have issued guidelines and recommendations, the absence of a unified legal framework has created exploitable gaps that transnational criminal networks increasingly leverage. This study adopts a comparative legal lens to examine how divergent national regulatory approaches to cryptoassets — ranging from permissive to prohibitive — affect the collective capacity of states to detect, investigate, and prosecute cryptoasset-related crimes. Drawing on legislative analysis, institutional reports, and case studies from select jurisdictions, the research argues that regulatory asymmetry — rather than technological anonymity alone — constitutes the primary structural enabler of cryptoasset-related criminal activity. The article concludes with a framework for regulatory convergence that preserves national legal sovereignty while establishing minimum enforceable international standards.

References

Brummer, C., & Yadav, Y. (2019). Fintech and the innovation trilemma. Georgetown Law Journal, 107(1), 235–307.

Campbell-Verduyn, M. (2022). Blockchains, regulatory legitimacy and global financial governance. Review of International Political Economy, 29(3), 814–839.

Chainalysis. (2023). The 2023 Crypto Crime Report. Chainalysis.

Europol. (2024). Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2023/2024. European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation.

FATF. (2021). Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers. Financial Action Task Force.

FATF. (2023). Targeted Update on Implementation of FATF Standards on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers. Financial Action Task Force.

IMF. (2022). El Salvador: 2021 Article IV Consultation. International Monetary Fund.

Interpol. (2023). Annual Report 2022. International Criminal Police Organization.

UNODC. (2023). Global Report on Financial Crimes and Digital Assets. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Yeoh, P. (2022). Crypto regulations: Harmonizing or disruptive approaches. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 30(4), 427–444.

Zetzsche, D.A., Annunziata, F., Arner, D.W., & Buck-Heeb, P. (2020). The markets in crypto-assets regulation (MiCA) and the EU digital finance strategy. Capital Markets Law Journal, 16(2), 203–225.