Criminal law risks of digitalization: the use of network communications and cryptocurrencies in terrorist financing

Subject. Features of legal regulation of the procedure for seizing electronic data storage devices conducted as part of investigative actions in crime investigation, as well as current issues related to the practical implementation of Article 164.1 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC of the RF) – one of the main “digital” novelties of the CPC of the RF. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of seizing electronic data storage devices as a type of physical evidence, to summarize and analyze the approaches of various courts to implementing the rule on involving a specialist in the procedure for seizing electronic data storage devices, and to interpret Parts 1 and 2 of Article 164.1 of the CPC of the RF in conjunction with Part 4.1 of Article 164 of the CPC of the RF. Methodology. The paper uses the method of legal modeling, as well as logical, formal legal and other methods. These methods, taken together, made it possible to interpret the normative provisions and theoretical approaches related to the procedure for seizing electronic data storage devices during various investigative actions, and to identify individual shortcomings and contradictions in the legislative regulation of the considered group of legal relations, to formulate conclusions in strict accordance with the rules for operating with concepts, judgments, and inferences. The method of legal modeling made it possible to determine priority measures aimed at improving domestic criminal procedure legislation. Main results and conclusions. Based on the study of the practice of applying Article 164.1 of the CPC of the RF, it is concluded that during the long period of its operation, the embedded “mechanisms” for overcoming prohibitions on unjustified seizure of electronic data storage devices in relation to business entities have not been eliminated, and controversial issues of the practical implementation of this «digital novelty» have not been resolved, which makes it difficult to implement the guarantee of judicial appeal against actions and decisions in accordance with Article 125 of the CPC of the RF. The authors substantiate the need to establish the concept of an electronic data storage device and the grounds for involving an investigator to involve a specialist in seizing electronic data storage devices and copying information from them, as well as clarifying the grounds for the mandatory involvement of an investigator to involve a specialist in the seizures of electronic data storage devices being carried out and copying information from them.