Jurislinguistic convergence in the criminal law regulation of liability for crimes related to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets

Asadov Ramu Beyukhanovich Senior Lecturer; Law Institute; Alexander Grigoryevich and Nikolai Grigoryevich Stoletov Vladimir State University Editor-in-Chief; Dialog (www.npzhdialog.ru ) 87 Gorky Street, Vladimir, Vladimir Region, 600026, Russia asadov@npzhdialog.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The rapid spread of cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets has radically transformed the nature of property turnover, creating qualitatively new forms of economic activity and, at the same time, new models of criminal behavior. Under these conditions, criminal law faced the need to adapt the conceptual framework and normative structures to phenomena that have no direct analogues in the traditional system of categories "property", "object of crime" or "proceeds from crime". At the same time, as E. A. Ruskevich rightly points out, the discourse around the criminal law qualification of actions with cryptocurrency is complicated by the lack of a unified legal definition and the heterogeneity of judicial practice, which indicates the conceptual incompleteness of the criminal law doctrine in this area ^{[1, pp. 106-108]}. This uncertainty has led to the need for an interdisciplinary approach based not only on criminal law analysis, but also on legal linguistic methods of studying the language of law.

The legal linguistic perspective is of particular importance due to the fact that the language of the criminal law, as emphasized by L. V. Sannikova, must simultaneously ensure the accuracy of the description of offenses and remain perceived in a technologically rapidly changing economic environment ^{[2, pp. 45-47]}. In a situation where the regulatory terms "digital currency", "digital financial asset", and "virtual asset" compete and partially overlap, there is a risk of a discrepancy between the legal formulation and the actual content of socially dangerous acts. This discrepancy is evident both at the regulatory level and in law enforcement practice, where, for example, the qualification of cryptocurrencies as the subject of a crime or object of confiscation depends on the interpretation of specific linguistic formulas of the law. Thus, the linguistic parameters of the text of the criminal law become no less significant than its substantive prescriptions.

However, the key problem remains the lack of a complete model of interaction between criminal law regulation and linguistic analysis, which prevents the formation of a unified system of qualification approaches. The jurislinguistic convergence presupposes the convergence of legal and linguistic structures, manifested in the conscious use of linguistic means to accurately describe legal structures in the context of digitalization ^{[3, pp. 3-6]}. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink the terminological apparatus, taking into account the cognitive features of the perception of new economic and legal categories. The introduction of cryptocurrencies into circulation creates a unique interdisciplinary context in which the accuracy of the language of criminal law becomes a key condition for the fair application of norms and uniformity of judicial practice. The study of legal linguistic convergence goes beyond a commentary on terminology and becomes a methodological support for the development and application of criminal law norms.

The methodological specificity of the study of criminal law regulation of crimes related to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets lies in the need to combine the conceptual approaches of criminal law and legal linguistics. This is due to the fact that, as S. S. Tikhonova and V. F. Golovanova emphasize, the language of criminal law should have the property of "conceptual economy", which makes it possible to fix complex social phenomena using precise, unambiguous and stable legal structures ^{[4, pp. 208-209]}. However, with regard to cryptocurrencies, such savings are difficult: the terminological field is fragmented, and the content of key definitions remains dynamic due to technological evolution and the emergence of new forms of digital assets.

In the context of regulatory uncertainty, the doctrinal understanding of digital assets, which has developed in neighboring branches of law, also plays an essential role. Thus, N. A. Labasheva and I. I. Trubchaninova note that digitalization leads to a complication of legal and linguistic models, since the language of law begins to include elements of technical terminology related to programming, distributed registries and cryptographic procedures ^{[5, pp. 99-100]}. This creates the risk of a "double code" — legal and technological — which makes it difficult to interpret criminal law norms and apply them in situations where the qualification of a crime depends on an accurate description of a digital object and its functional characteristics. Thus, modern research on digital legal linguistics forms an important methodological prerequisite for the analysis of criminal law risks associated with the use of cryptocurrencies.

At the same time, the analysis of criminalization of acts using cryptocurrencies requires correlation of a linguistic approach with socio-legal determinants. M. V. Stepanov and A.V. Petryanin reasonably point out that the emergence of new financial and technological tools transforms the structure of crime, forming new mechanisms for hiding income, anonymizing transactions and cross-border movement of funds ^{[6, pp. 205-207]}. It was these features that led to the inclusion of individual digital objects in the sphere of criminal law regulation and actualized the issue of precise legal definitions. Consequently, the formation of a criminal law policy in the field of cryptocurrencies is impossible without relying on the linguistic clarification of terms that describe the subject of the crime, the methods of committing the act and the consequences of illegal activities. This interdisciplinary approach avoids regulatory conflicts and ensures consistency in law enforcement practice.

The main part

1. The conceptual framework. Legal and linguistic uncertainty and the qualification of crimes

The definition of cryptocurrency as a subject of criminal law protection is impossible without referring to its linguistic and legal description. It has been repeatedly emphasized in the scientific literature that the very terminological construction "cryptocurrency" contains elements related to both financial and technological discourse. V. R. Semenov convincingly shows that the use of the word "currency" as part of the term does not reflect the legal nature of this object, since cryptocurrency is devoid of signs of a legitimate means of payment and does not It has an imperative status in national legal systems ^{[7, pp. 35-36]}. Consequently, the normative consolidation of the term is the result of a compromise between economic and information technology approaches, which requires special care when using it in criminal law norms, where terminological error inevitably affects the result of qualification.

Legal linguistic studies confirm that the interpretation of digital terminology should take into account not only the semantic characteristics of words, but also their functional connections within the legal system. D. N. Himedenova and T. I. Gorbacheva emphasize that the uncertainty of the terminological status of cryptocurrencies generates discrepancies in judicial practice, since different courts define it differently as property, means of payment or digital information ^{[8, pp. 3-5]}. From the point of view of legal linguistics, this discrepancy is explained by the fact that the linguistic formula of the law does not have a sufficient level of detail to describe the multilevel structure of digital assets. As a result, the linguistic parameters of the term become a direct factor in criminal law qualification, and the accuracy of definitions is a condition for uniformity in the application of the law.

A systematic understanding of cryptocurrency as an object of criminal law protection also requires an analysis of its structural and economic and legal features. A. A. Maksurov, investigating the phenomenon of cryptocurrency in civil circulation, argues that the key property of this object is a combination of property value with the absence of a centralized issuer, which creates a special type of risks associated with anonymity and lack of government control ^{[9, pp. 112-115]}. These characteristics are of direct importance for criminal law, as they determine the ways in which crimes are committed, from fraud to money laundering, as well as the specifics of proving ownership, disposition, and origin of assets. Thus, the cryptocurrency acts not only as an object of unlawful encroachments, but also as a factor in the transformation of traditional criminal law structures.

In the light of the above, cryptocurrency can be defined as a digital financial and information object with economic value, existing in a decentralized environment and using cryptographic mechanisms to confirm transactions, which necessitates a special legal and linguistic analysis of its properties in the formation and application of criminal law norms. The proposed definition covers both the technological nature of a digital asset and its legal significance as an object of property relations. It makes it possible to eliminate the methodological gap between the normative text and the actual content of criminal law relations, creating the basis for a subsequent study of the qualification of crimes committed using cryptocurrencies. Thus, conceptual clarity and linguistic accuracy are the primary conditions for correct law enforcement in this area.

The regulatory consolidation of cryptocurrencies in Russian law demonstrates a significant dependence of the legal structure on the linguistic design of terms. Federal Law No. 259-FZ of July 31, 2020 "On Digital Financial Assets, Digital Currency and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" uses the formula "digital currency" and defines it as a set of electronic data contained in an information system that the parties to the agreement recognize as an object of civil rights. This definition emphasizes the informational nature of a digital asset, avoiding the use of the concepts of "property" or "money", traditionally significant for criminal law. The linguistic choice of the legislator created a situation in which an object with obvious economic value and actively used in circulation as an analogue of money is normatively constructed using terms that take it away from the sphere of classical property categories. As a result, there is a need for a doctrinal and judicial interpretation of how to correlate this information and legal description with the criminal law typology of the subject of the crime.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a special rule on cryptocurrency, however, issues of its status regularly arise in connection with the definition of the subject of crimes against property, economic activity and the order of treatment of property obtained by criminal means. This reinforces the importance of the accuracy of the language constructions used by the legislator. Since the legislator in Federal Law No. 259-FZ avoids the category of "property", the law enforcement officer is forced to interpret cryptocurrency through the general provisions of the criminal law: for example, through the construction of "other property" or "property rights" (Articles 158, 159, 171.2 of the Criminal Code). This need for interpretation shows that the language of special regulation of digital assets is not sufficiently synchronized with the language of the criminal law. This is where the need for legal linguistic convergence manifests itself: the elimination of inconsistencies between legal texts of different branches is possible only through the alignment of terminology and the establishment of clear semantic boundaries of concepts used in law.

The problem is compounded by the fact that digital assets are interpreted much more broadly in civil law doctrine than in criminal law. Thus, V. A. Sadkov emphasizes that digital financial assets have the quality of turnover and include both property rights and unique information objects created on the basis of distributed registries ^{[10, pp. 74-77]}. If the criminalistic description of the subject of the crime ignores these characteristics, there is a risk of incorrect qualification: criminal behavior related to the acquisition of a token can be qualified as theft of information, whereas in fact the object of encroachment is a valuable digital asset that performs the functions of an analogue of property.

A comparative analysis of normative acts shows that the lack of a systematic terminological unification hinders the formation of a uniform criminal law policy. While Federal Law No. 259-FZ uses language focused on the technological nature of digital currency, the criminal law operates with economic and legal categories traditionally tied to objects of the material world. This creates a conflict between the language of industry regulation and the language of criminal law: by describing the same phenomenon, legal texts actually construct different legal models that require additional efforts to coordinate. In such circumstances, the legal linguistic convergence acts not just as an analytical technique, but as a tool for regulatory harmonization, which makes it possible to identify hidden contradictions between the texts of laws and propose solutions that ensure the accuracy and predictability of criminal law qualifications.

One of the most problematic areas is the qualification of crimes related to the acquisition of cryptocurrency through threats, coercion or violence. In the absence of a special rule in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the law enforcement officer is forced to define cryptocurrency either as "property" or as a "property right". This leads to ambiguity in the qualification of extortion, since the traditional construction of the subject of the crime, as M. M. Dolgieva notes, does not take into account the intangible nature of the digital asset and its ability to exist exclusively in a distributed environment ^{[11, pp. 220-221]}. The linguistic ambiguity of the term "property" in the context of digitalization leads to the fact that courts are forced to fill in the gaps with individual interpretation, which increases the risk of fragmentation of judicial practice. Consequently, the accuracy of the terminological apparatus is not an abstract linguistic task, but a factor determining the content of criminal liability.

The problem is particularly acute in the area of corruption crimes. When defining cryptocurrencies as the subject of a bribe or commercial bribery, the question arises about their proprietary nature and ability to perform the function of benefits of criminal significance. The doctrine draws attention to the fact that digital currency, while not being a legitimate means of payment, nevertheless has an equivalent property value, which makes it possible to qualify it as an object of illegal remuneration. EA Usacheva and A.D. Filimonov emphasize that the specifics of cryptocurrencies as a decentralized asset create additional difficulties in proving, since the transfer of bribes is often carried out through chains of transactions that make it difficult to establish the subject and amount of illegal remuneration ^{[12, pp. 86-88]}.

I. R. Aminov and S. V. Trusov point out that digital currency is objectively used as a tool to conceal economically significant transactions, which stimulates the inclusion of cryptocurrencies in circulating schemes for obtaining illegal remuneration ^{[13, pp. 94-95]}. However, the lack of a unified terminological approach leads to the fact that in some cases the courts classify actions only as obtaining property benefits, without recognizing the cryptocurrency as the subject of a bribe. Such a multidirectional nature of decisions indicates that without legal linguistic convergence — that is, the harmonization of linguistic models of criminal and financial regulation - it is impossible to ensure uniformity of qualifications and legal certainty.

The key area of analysis is the formation of judicial practice demonstrating attempts to overcome regulatory uncertainty. One of the first cases testifying to the recognition of cryptocurrencies as an economically significant object was the verdict of the Kalininsky District Court of Cheboksary, where the court qualified the actions of the accused as fraud, based on the fact that the victim lost an asset with property value (see the verdict of the Kalininsky District Court of Cheboksary of the Chuvash Republic dated February 5, 2018 in case No. 1-46/2018). The court pointed out that the digital nature of the asset does not exclude its economic significance, and, therefore, allows its inclusion in the subject of theft. This decision became an important guideline for subsequent judicial practice and demonstrated that the legal and linguistic analysis of the concept of "property" can change the approach to qualification.

Similar conclusions can be traced in the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Kirov, where actions to seize digital assets were also qualified as crimes against property. The court noted that the cryptocurrency has a "value expression and the ability to participate in turnover," which allows it to be classified as property regardless of its digital form (see the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Kirov, Kirov region, dated February 12, 2020 in case No. 1-44/2020). This approach demonstrates the formation of a new law enforcement trend: courts are gradually developing legal and linguistic criteria for classifying digital assets as objects of criminal law protection. Although these decisions have no normative force, they actually form doctrinal guidelines that narrow the range of uncertainty in the interpretation of the law.

The appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court in case No. 22-5295/2020 contained a fundamentally important wording: cryptocurrency is recognized as an object of property relations in the context of evaluating evidence in the extortion case (see the appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court of November 23, 2020 in case No. 22-5295/2020). The court found the existence of property damage, despite the absence of a tangible form of the asset. This conclusion demonstrates a clear jurislinguistic convergence: the use of the traditional conceptual framework of criminal law to describe a digital object became possible due to an expanded interpretation of the linguistic formula "property". Thus, judicial practice has actually become an engine for changing the semantic boundaries of criminal law terms.

2. Confiscation, legalization of income and language of judicial acts

The problem of cryptocurrency confiscation demonstrates how significantly the language design of norms affects the criminal law regime of digital assets. 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, property objects subject to confiscation are described through traditional material categories, which makes it difficult to include digital assets in their composition. As A. A. Knyazkov emphasizes, the linguistic formula of the article is built around the categories of "property" and "other property", which do not take into account the informational nature of cryptocurrencies, so courts have to place digital assets within the broad but vague concept of "other property" ^{[14, pp. 175-177]}. This leads to the fact that confiscation becomes possible only with an additional interpretation based on conclusions about the value nature of the cryptocurrency, but without a proper regulatory basis. Thus, the gap between the language of the law and the nature of digital assets is particularly acute here and requires a revision of the legislative structure or its legal and linguistic clarification.

The role of language becomes even more important in the qualification of acts related to the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from criminal activity. In one of the recent rulings of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, issued in the case of the legalization of proceeds from the sale of narcotic drugs using cryptocurrencies, it is stated that operations to convert cryptocurrencies into rubles with subsequent transfer of funds to bank accounts are classified as financial transactions and, under appropriate circumstances, may indicate the legitimate appearance of criminal income (see the cassation ruling of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 8, 2023 No. 6-UDP23-6-A1; the Supreme Court recalled that the conversion of cryptocurrencies into rubles may indicate the legalization of income. URL: https://www.advgazeta.ru/novosti/vs-napomnil-chto-konvertatsiya-kriptovalyuty-v-rubli-mozhet-svidetelstvovat-o-legalizatsii-dokhodov / (date of access: 11/29/2025)). Judicial practice is gradually forming a linguistically and legally agreed understanding of cryptocurrencies as an object capable of being included in property transactions that are important for the qualification of money laundering.

It should be noted that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its rulings on the legalization of criminally acquired property, actually prepares the regulatory framework for including digital assets in the scope of Articles 174 and 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The resolutions of 2015 and 2019 define property as an object with economic value, regardless of the form of its existence, which makes it possible to apply these provisions to digital objects, including cryptocurrency (see Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07.07.2015 No. 32 (as amended on 26.02.2019) "On judicial practice in cases of legalization (Laundering) money or other property acquired by criminal means, and on the acquisition or sale of property knowingly obtained by criminal means"; see Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 26, 2019 No. 1 "On Amendments to Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 7, 2015 No. 32 "On Judicial Practice in Cases of Legalization (Laundering) of Funds or Other Property Acquired by Criminal Means, and on the Acquisition or Sale of Property Knowingly Obtained by Criminal Means").

Of particular importance is the analysis of the motivational parts of judicial acts, where the language of the decision becomes a tool for the doctrinal development of criminal law. The rulings of the Plenum and the rulings of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on digital assets consistently use vocabulary that emphasizes the functional nature of cryptocurrencies ("turnover", "value equivalent", "financial transaction"), which gradually consolidates the relevant approaches in law enforcement practice. The Court is actually forming a new language for describing digital objects based on a combination of financial, economic and legal categories. This is a vivid manifestation of the jurislinguistic convergence: judicial discourse is becoming a space where new terminological models are being formed that can fill in the gaps of regulatory regulation. In the future, this may lead to the institutionalization of terminology reflecting the digital nature of modern facilities involved in criminal law.

3. Legal linguistic convergence in the formation of the conceptual framework and qualification of crimes related to digital assets

Modern transformations of criminal law regulation in the field of digital assets show that the application of classical categories of criminal law requires taking into account not only the positive content of the norm, but also those cognitive and linguistic structures that form its semantic content. In this context, the conceptual framework developed by the legislation and the expert community, used in projects to modernize criminal and criminal procedure legislation, is of particular importance. Draft Federal Law No. 902782-8, aimed at including digital currency in objects of confiscation, demonstrates the legislator's desire to clarify terminological boundaries based on existing judicial approaches and doctrinal conclusions. For the first time, the draft provides for the regulatory consolidation of provisions aimed at recognizing cryptocurrencies as an object of property in the context of criminal law regulation.

The jurislinguistic convergence presupposes such a convergence, in which the language of law ceases to be an exclusively technical means of fixing norms and turns into a mechanism for conceptual understanding of legal phenomena ^{[15, pp. 108-111]}. In the field of cryptocurrency regulation, this means the need to build terminology capable of describing complex digital objects through categories adequate to their functional and economic characteristics. The inconsistency of terms generates not only conflicts of interpretation, but also complicates law enforcement, since the court, examining the reflection of a digital transaction in evidence, is forced to use language that is not provided with strict regulatory content. The convergence of disciplines here acts as a way of cognitive ordering of legal meanings, enhancing the predictability of criminal law structures.

The transformation of the legal language is inevitable in the context of the emergence of new regulatory objects, but requires strict criteria of norm formation, excluding semantic uncertainty ^{[16, pp. 52-55]}. For criminal law, this means the need to develop terminology in which stable features of digital assets are fixed, allowing a law enforcement officer to unambiguously identify the subject of a crime and the categories interacting with it (method of commission, consequences, nature of damage). Thus, the linguistic structurality of terms becomes a prerequisite for doctrinal and practical consistency.

The methodological potential of legal linguistics is enhanced when terms borrowed from technical disciplines appear in the legal system. The analysis of the problem of defining "artificial intelligence" conducted by A. A. Vasiliev and co-authors demonstrates that the gap between the scientific and normative meaning of the term leads to significant difficulties in legal interpretation, creating the risk of its arbitrary application ^{[17, pp. 38-40]}. This conclusion is also applicable to cryptocurrencies: if the language of the norm does not capture functionally significant features of a digital asset, the law enforcement officer is forced to construct the meaning on his own, which reduces the quality of qualifications and leads to fragmentation of practice. Consequently, the creation of a correct terminological layer in criminal law requires reliance on interdisciplinary linguistic techniques that make it possible to establish clear semantic contours of digital concepts.

The development of legal linguistic approaches allows us to formulate a general conclusion: the criminal qualification of crimes related to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets becomes impossible without cognitive adaptation of terminology that ensures proportionality between the language of law and technological reality. Linguistic uncertainty creates legal uncertainty; on the contrary, linguistic ordering — through the introduction of clear normative concepts, the definition of digital assets, and the coordination of intersectoral definitions — enhances the predictability and stability of criminal law regulation. The convergence of linguistics and law in this case performs not an auxiliary, but a constructive function: it creates conditions for the formation of uniform judicial practice and allows theoretically substantiating the need to update criminal law terminology in relation to digital objects.

4. The author's concept of legal linguistic convergence and types of linguistic uncertainty

The criminal law regulation of the turnover of cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets is developing mainly reactively today: the legislator and law enforcement officer respond to the already established practices of criminal use of digital assets. Within the framework of criminal policy, this has been repeatedly emphasized, in particular, in the research of M. M. Dolgieva, who points out that criminal activity in the field of cryptocurrencies is formed faster than the conceptual framework of the law has time to adapt ^[18]. Similarly, V. A. Perov, analyzing the qualification of crimes using cryptocurrencies, shows that the lack of stable terminological constructions forces courts and investigative authorities to resort to casuistic solutions based on isolated precedents rather than a built-in system of categories ^[19]. In these circumstances, the jurislinguistic convergence in criminal law can be understood as a purposeful convergence of the language of law, the language of doctrine and the language of judicial practice, aimed at developing a coherent conceptual framework for describing digital objects and related crimes. Such convergence is not just an interdisciplinary dialogue, but a methodological principle that makes it possible to synchronize the normative, doctrinal and practical levels of regulation.

Within the framework of the proposed approach, it seems advisable to identify three main types of linguistic uncertainty that complicate the qualification of crimes related to cryptocurrency: terminological, system-structural and pragmatic. Terminological uncertainty is associated with competition and the intersection of concepts such as "digital currency", "digital financial asset", "digital property", "virtual asset". I. S. Mochalkina justifiably notes that the introduction of constructions related to digital currency into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation took place without prior in-depth terminological study, which led to the "imposition" of new categories on the old conceptual layer without a clear differentiation of their content ^{[20, pp. 261-263]}. Systemic and structural uncertainty is manifested in the misalignment of terms between different branches of law and levels of regulation, when the same digital object receives different descriptions in civil, financial and criminal legislation. Pragmatic uncertainty arises at the level of practice: the language of judicial acts and law enforcement activities does not always follow normative definitions, which generates hybrid formulas that are not based on a single glossary.

Terminological uncertainty is most clearly manifested when trying to qualify acts against property in which digital assets are the object of encroachment. V. G. Ponomarev, analyzing the category of "digital property" in the context of crimes against property, notes that traditional constructions of "other people's property" and "property damage" do not take into account the peculiarity of digital objects that can be simultaneously informational and proprietary in nature ^{[21, pp. 215-217]}. As a result, there is a danger of arbitrary attribution of tokenized assets to information or property, which directly affects the choice of the corpus delicti (for example, fraud, unauthorized access to computer information, theft, etc.). The legal linguistic convergence in this aspect presupposes the development of stable definitions in which the digital nature of the asset and its economic value are fixed in a single terminological description that excludes fluctuations between "information" and "property". Thus, a prerequisite is created for the alignment of qualification approaches, when the same object cannot be interpreted arbitrarily depending on the circumstances of a particular case.

The systemic and structural uncertainty is related to the fact that the regulation of digital assets is fragmented between different sets of norms, and criminal law comes into contact with them through heterogeneous conceptual layers. S. V. Ermakov and D. D. Gubanov, considering cryptocurrencies "with criminal overtones," show that in real practice law enforcement agencies operate primarily economically and operationally categories ("anonymity", "opacity of transactions", "transit wallets"), while the regulatory level continues to use the traditional language of property relations ^{[22, pp. 72-74]}. There is a discrepancy between the language of financial monitoring, the language of criminal law, and the language of law enforcement, leading to a "gap" in qualifications: the same actions can be described as cashing out, as legalizing, or as a routine asset conversion. In this case, the legal linguistic convergence should be aimed at building a unified system of categories that makes it possible to synchronize the conceptual framework of various regulatory regimes and translate the criminalistic features of digital operations into legally significant elements of a crime.

Pragmatic uncertainty manifests itself mainly at the level of judicial decisions, where courts are forced to adapt the language of the motivational parts to new objects without relying on a developed terminological system. A significant example is the definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 2, 2021, in which the court recognized the possibility of protecting rights in relation to digital assets through traditional constructions of civil law, in fact expanding the understanding of property at the expense of digital objects (see the Definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 2, 2021 no. 44-KG20-17-K7, 2-2886/2019). Although it belongs to the civil law sphere, its linguistic and conceptual approach is inevitably projected onto criminal law, since extending the content of the category "property" to digital objects opens up the possibility of a similar interpretation in the context of crimes against property. In this case, the legal linguistic convergence is manifested in the fact that the judicial language becomes a "bridge" between industry regimes: through the motivation of decisions, a common conceptual layer is formed that allows criminal law to "tighten" its categories to already established civil law models. Thus, overcoming pragmatic uncertainty is possible through the institutionalization of these linguistic decisions — through clarifications from higher courts, glossaries, and recommendations that ensure uniformity of usage.

To summarize, it can be suggested to consider the legal linguistic convergence as a holistic concept, including: a) the development of agreed definitions of digital assets, b) the harmonization of interdisciplinary terminology, c) the institutionalization of judicial linguistic practices. Terminological, system-structural, and pragmatic uncertainty do not exist in isolation: they mutually reinforce each other, creating a complex effect of uncertainty affecting both rulemaking and law enforcement. Convergence, on the contrary, presupposes a consistent alignment of all three levels: the law gets a clear language for describing digital objects, the doctrine gets a stable conceptual framework for their analysis, and judicial practice gets clear guidelines for qualification. In the future, this creates the basis for the development of more accurate crimes related to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets, as well as for the formulation of recommendations for improving criminal legislation regarding the regulation of digital assets.

Conclusion

The analysis showed that the legal linguistic convergence is not only a methodological tool for the study of digital objects, but also a key condition for the formation of effective criminal law regulation. Taken together, the considered aspects — from the normative consolidation of concepts to the specifics of judicial practice — demonstrate that the language of law has constructive power: through a terminological description, it actually defines the content of criminal law categories applicable to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets. This suggests that the current problems of classifying crimes using digital assets are rooted not so much in the absence of special norms as in the absence of a stable and unified conceptual framework. In this context, the legal linguistic convergence manifests itself as a mechanism that ensures consistency between the normative text, doctrine and law enforcement practice, which creates the prerequisites for the formation of a uniform approach to digital objects of criminal law protection.

The systematization of the identified types of linguistic uncertainty shows that terminological heterogeneity is a basic problem that generates subsequent structural and pragmatic discrepancies. The terms fixed in financial and civil legislation do not coincide in semantic parameters with the language of criminal law, which makes it difficult to qualify and creates risks of incorrect application of criminal law norms. Systemic and structural contradictions are intensified when digital assets function simultaneously as information objects, property values and economic resources used in criminal activities. Pragmatic uncertainty manifests itself in judicial practice: courts are forced to independently determine the linguistic boundaries of terms, creating legal constructions that then receive a broad interpretation, but are not always based on a normative definition. This implies the need for a purposeful formation of a unified terminology system covering digital assets at all levels of regulation.

The analysis of the criminal law qualification of crimes in the digital sphere convincingly demonstrates that without the unification of terminology, it is impossible to ensure the predictability of law enforcement. Court decisions recognizing cryptocurrencies as objects of property, property rights, or financial transactions create an important practical basis, but they do not replace regulatory regulation. Moreover, the lack of legislative consolidation of a number of qualifying features of digital assets forces the courts to broadly interpret the concepts of the criminal law, which inevitably creates the risk of misunderstandings and deviations from the principle of legality. The legal linguistic convergence in this aspect makes it possible to form a methodologically stable qualification model: a digital asset is considered as an object of a proprietary nature with functional features derived from its technological nature. This description ensures the logical integration of digital objects into crimes and allows overcoming methodological barriers that arise in the qualification of fraud, extortion, corruption crimes and money laundering.

The initiative presented in draft Federal Law No. 902782-8 indicates a movement in the right direction, but their conceptual value depends on the depth of terminology and the ability of regulatory formulas to adequately reflect the functional nature of digital objects. In addition, unification of the language models used in criminal, civil and financial law is required in order to exclude the situation when an object recognized as property in one context turns out to be "digital information" in another. Such fragmentation should give way to a single conceptual framework that ensures continuity and predictability of regulation.

An equally important area is the institutionalization of judicial linguistic practice. The clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as the analysis has shown, are capable of correcting and developing criminal law categories, introducing new elements into their semantic structure. However, these clarifications should be systematized and integrated into the updated conceptual framework of digital assets in order to become not an exception, but part of the regulatory qualification model. The development of interdisciplinary analysis techniques — the participation of linguists, digital economics specialists and criminologists — will not only systematize terminology, but also develop criteria for evaluating evidence related to digital transactions, which is especially important for cases of money laundering and corruption-related crimes. Thus, the analysis of the legal linguistic convergence shows that its introduction into criminal law is not an optional scientific approach, but a necessary condition for modernizing the content and language of the criminal law.

The conducted research allows us to conclude that the legal linguistic convergence is not only an interdisciplinary approach combining the methods of law and linguistics, but also a fundamental mechanism for the modernization of criminal legislation. In the context of the rapid development of the digital economy and the increasing complexity of criminal practices related to cryptocurrencies, the language of law ceases to be a neutral shell of the norm: it becomes an active tool for constructing legal reality. It is through the conceptual and terminological apparatus used that the legislator sets the framework for criminal law protection, and the law enforcement officer forms interpretive models that ensure the practical implementation of norms. The legal linguistic convergence makes it possible to bridge the gap between the normative and factual content of digital phenomena, ensuring the adequacy of criminal law regulation to new technological forms of public relations.

The accuracy and consistency of terminology determine the boundaries of the criminal law norms. Where the legislator uses vague or unstable concepts, there is a risk of fragmented practice and unpredictable qualifications. Digital assets, being objects of a hybrid nature, require unified definitions that can simultaneously reflect their technological structure, economic value, and functional involvement in criminal schemes. The introduction of such definitions will eliminate competition between terms, eliminate systemic and structural contradictions, and provide clarity in determining the subject of a crime. This is especially important for the qualification of fraud, extortion, corruption crimes and money laundering, where the possibility of using appropriate formulations depends on the accuracy of the terminological description.

It is necessary to ensure the coordination of the conceptual framework of criminal, civil and financial legislation. The current regulatory system creates a situation where the same digital object can be described in different categories, which creates a risk of collisions and complicates judicial interpretation. Here, the legal linguistic convergence acts as a tool for inter-industry harmonization: its application makes it possible to identify semantic discrepancies and offer a unified language for all areas of digital asset regulation. At the same time, judicial practice, including acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, plays the role of a catalyst for qualitative changes — it demonstrates how a real law enforcement officer reworks terminological constructions, filling them with functional content. Such practice should be institutionalized through systematic explanations, methodological recommendations and updating of the text of the law.

One of the most important areas of reform is the regulatory consolidation of digital assets as objects subject to criminal protection, including in terms of confiscation, qualification of crimes and evidence. Legislative initiatives aimed at clarifying terminology and including digital currency in the list of objects of confiscation represent an important step forward, but require further study in terms of linguistic accuracy and cross-sectoral unity. It is necessary to form a comprehensive conceptual framework that includes legally valid and linguistically stable features of digital assets, which will eliminate existing contradictions and ensure the predictability of law enforcement. The imbalance between the legislator and judicial practice can be eliminated only if the language of the criminal law reflects modern technological reality.

The formulated research results allow us to substantiate the author's model of legal linguistic convergence as a methodological basis for the development of criminal law in the digital age. This model includes:

1) developing sustainable definitions of digital assets;

2) coordination of terminology between criminal, civil and financial law;

3) institutionalization of judicial linguistic constructions;

4) formation of methods for evaluating digital transactions in the evidentiary process;

5) the inclusion of legal linguistic principles in the rulemaking process.

The implementation of this model will ensure the streamlining of qualification approaches, eliminate numerous contradictions in law enforcement and create the basis for the modernization of criminal legislation, taking into account the needs of the digital economy. The legal linguistic convergence not only strengthens the theoretical basis of criminal law, but also contributes to the formation of effective mechanisms for the protection of public relations in the context of rapid technological development.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article