Promotion and verification of versions of innocence in criminal cases of theft of cryptocurrenc

The growing popularity of cryptocurrencies as a means of accumulation, exchange, and payment has led to the emergence of new types of crimes related, in particular, to the theft of this money, and also led to new problems. Among them, the problem of verifying versions about the innocence of defendants and suspects in criminal cases of cryptocurrency theft stands out, which requires the development of the necessary methodological tools to solve. The article, based on current legislation, law enforcement practice and opinions expressed in the scientific literature, identifies the specifics of cryptocurrency as an object of theft, and notes cases of non-recognition of cryptocurrency as an object of civil rights and a subject of theft. The author substantiates the inconsistency of positions that deny the economic value of the cryptocurrency. There is a lack of a single terminology for the designation of cryptocurrency (digital currency). Attention is focused on certain difficulties arising in connection with the nomination and verification of versions of innocence in criminal cases of theft of cryptocurrency. The content of guilt and trustworthiness of property as the main signs of theft of cryptocurrency by appropriation or embezzlement is revealed. The law enforcement practice in cases of theft of cryptocurrencies is studied and its insufficiency for a comprehensive study is emphasized. Two typical versions of the innocence of the suspect (accused) are distinguished, which can be put forward and verified both on the initiative of the defense and on the initiative of the investigation, as part of a preliminary check, and the possibilities for using these versions by the defense and the investigator are described. The conclusion is made about the expediency of anticipatory verification of protective versions by the investigator, as well as about the possibility in some cases of the defense party putting forward a version justifying the inconsistency of the cryptocurrency with Russian legislation and the impossibility of considering the cryptocurrency as an object of theft.