HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR FRAUD USING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS

Klimov Ilya

This article presents a comprehensive historical and comparative analysis of criminal prosecution for fraud involving electronic payment instruments in the context of accelerating digitalization of financial relations. The research traces the evolution of Article 159.3 of the Russian Criminal Code from its introduction in 2016 through Federal Law No. 323-FZ to contemporary enforcement practices in 2024–2025, during which digital crime escalated from 294400 registered cases (2019) to 677000 (2023), with damage reaching 27.5–295 billion rubles and detection rates remaining critically low at 10.1–23.2% for large-scale IT fraud. Employing doctrinal analysis and comparative legal methodology, the study examines legislative frameworks and prosecutorial approaches across four jurisdictions: Russia (Article 159.3 of the Russian Criminal Code), the United States (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030), the United Kingdom (Fraud Act 2006), and Germany (§ 263a StGB). The comparative analysis reveals substantive differences in legal construction—while Russia emphasizes deception through electronic means, the U.S. focuses on unauthorized access with felony enhancement thresholds, the UK adopts flexible "dishonesty" tests independent of technical specifications, and Germany prioritizes objective data manipulation criteria. The article identifies systemic deficiencies in Russian enforcement, including latency (85% unreported cases), evidentiary challenges in tracing digital footprints (IP masking, VPN, blockchain anonymization), qualification conflicts with Article 272 of the Russian Criminal Code (unauthorized access), and insufficient integration of AI-driven forensic standards (PCI DSS, EMV). Drawing on best practices such as data-manipulation doctrines, felony enhancement mechanisms, and inter-agency cyber fusion models (NCA, BKA), the study proposes legislative amendments to Article 159.3 of the Russian Criminal Code to encompass P2P transactions, AI-generated fraud (deepfakes, voice cloning), institutional capacity-building through specialized IT expertise training (CEPOL programs), and enhanced international cooperation via Europol and INTERPOL frameworks. These evidence-based recommendations aim to harmonize Russian cybercrime legislation with global standards, potentially increasing prosecution efficacy by 30–50% and strengthening legal deterrence in the era of transnational digital fraud and artificial intelligence.

Keywords:Electronic payment fraud; comparative criminal law; cybercrime prosecution; Article 159.3 Russian Criminal Code; digital forensics.