Cryptocurrency micropayments on the dark web as a tool for financing human trafficking: criminal classification of “micro-layering” and decentralization of responsibility in light of TFR/MiCA and Articles 299, 189a, and 258 of the Criminal Code

Abstract

The article provides a criminal law analysis of cryptocurrency micropayments used in the dark web infrastructure as a mechanism for financing human trafficking, focusing on the phenomenon of ‘micro-layering’ – the fragmentation of the value stream into numerous small transfers and the switching of on-/off-chain and cross-chain settlement channels in order to make it difficult to identify the origin and forfeit the property. From a dogmatic perspective, I demonstrate that micro-layering constitutes an executive technique under Article 299 § 1 of the Criminal Code (obstructing the determination of origin, location, detection, seizure or forfeiture), which – with an exploitative source of funds – coincides with Article 189a of the Criminal Code, and in platform configurations with a permanent division of roles, also with Article 258 of the Criminal Code. A systemic analysis places this classification within the EU architecture: the Regulation on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets (Transfer of Funds Regulation, TFR) ‘illuminates’ the edges of the sequence where there is a payment service provider or a crypto-asset service provider (CASP), while the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation organises the circle of service providers ‘for the customer’, maintaining neutrality towards non-custodial infrastructure. At the methodological level, I combine linguistic, systemic and purposive interpretation with mapping of payment sequences per sequence (rather than per transaction) and with an evidentiary standard based on combining data from the ‘edges’ of the TFR/EBA Guidelines with on-/off-chain material off-chain material, with a clear distinction between facts and inferences. On this basis, I formulate proposals de lege ferenda: (a) ‘micro-Travel Rule’ – short-term aggregation of related transfers at TFR addressees; (b) addition to Article 299 of the Criminal Code on ‘sequential layering’; (c) targeted obligations of ‘gatekeepers’ towards commercial, fiduciary services ‘for the benefit of the customer’; (d) a ‘quick freeze’ mode (48–72 hours) linked to EU cooperation instruments; (e) standard expert opinions with quality metrics. At the same time, I emphasise the limits of proportionality (GDPR; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) and the CJEU line limiting universal disclosure solutions in favour of targeted obligations of addressees. The article shows that without a legislative revolution, it is possible to achieve real ‘sequence visibility’ and protect victims of human trafficking more effectively, while maintaining technological neutrality and procedural guarantees.