On January 14, 2026, in the Eastern Eight Time Zone, Russia and India almost simultaneously raised their enforcement standards against cryptocurrency fraud. The former systematically exposed a new round of scams disguised as compliant brokers through Sberbank, while the latter announced the freezing of approximately $1.3 million in related cryptocurrency assets, dropping two regulatory "heavyweights" on the market on the same day. On one side, Russia faces a massive financial black hole with average losses of up to 1 billion rubles (about $11 million) per case due to new types of scams within a year. On the other side, India is cutting off the chain through asset freezes, pointing to related cases totaling about $3.2 million. These two main lines form a stark contrast in time and narrative, bringing the direct collision between traditional financial institutions and cryptocurrency crime technologies to the forefront, and making "can the regulatory system keep up with the iteration of scammer technologies" the core question of this storm.

1 Billion Rubles per Case: The Upgraded Trap of Disguised Brokers

In Russia, the latest disclosed type of scam involving disguised compliant brokers is no longer satisfied with simple telemarketing tactics but instead aims to replicate a "completely normal-looking" financial service shell as much as possible. Scammers often build sophisticated websites that mimic the interface design of licensed brokers or investment platforms, equipped with online customer service and "exclusive consultants," using familiar financial terminology and compliance language to lower ordinary investors' vigilance. In terms of inducement paths, they attract traffic through social media, phone promotions, or even "friend referrals," initially creating profit records with small, short-term, high-win-rate "trial orders," and then encouraging victims to increase leverage and add principal. Once all funds are under the control of the other party's account, they block withdrawals under excuses like system maintenance or compliance review until they completely disappear. Sber's Vice Chairman Kuznetsov bluntly stated that scammers have upgraded from traditional inducement loan models to complex scams disguised as compliant brokers. This shift means that fraud is no longer just simple financial inducement but involves deeply mimicking the business processes and language systems of licensed financial institutions. Corresponding to this iteration is a dramatic increase in risk scale: according to data disclosed by Sber, the average loss caused by a single scam reaches 1 billion rubles, about $11 million, making each successful scam capable of shaking the entire assets of a small or medium-sized enterprise or even a family. While financial trust is severely damaged, it also forces regulatory authorities to view these "disguised brokers" as sources of systemic risk rather than isolated cases.

Russia's Path of Eliminating 38 Groups in a Year

The response speed from Russia is also accelerating. Public data shows that in the past year, authorities have cracked down on 38 organizations related to such scams, indicating that the rectification of disguised brokers is no longer sporadic enforcement but is being incorporated into a normalized crackdown framework. In this process, Sber plays multiple roles: as a national large bank, it undertakes basic payment clearing and account management functions, serving as the first gate for fund inflows and outflows; as a compliance hub, it needs to implement regulatory requirements in account opening, transaction monitoring, and customer identity verification, promptly reporting suspicious funds and accounts; at the same time, as a technology platform, Sber is also at the forefront of AI anti-fraud practices, combining traditional risk control with intelligent recognition capabilities to build a security defense line at the level of financial infrastructure. In terms of publicly available information, the AI system used by Sber mainly revolves around two ideas: one is to conduct pattern recognition on large-scale transaction data, marking potential suspicious transactions through dimensions such as abnormal fund flows, frequent inter-account transfers, and associations with known risk addresses; the other is to profile account behavior and registration information, quickly identifying "disguised broker" accounts that significantly exceed normal brokerage business paradigms, such as accounts that concentrate large amounts of funds in a short period but hardly connect to the external formal market. The advantage of the collaboration between AI and traditional regulatory tools is that machines can conduct real-time screening in massive transactions, significantly compressing the time scammers have to transfer funds, while also providing law enforcement with more structured clues. However, this system is not without side effects; on one hand, the increased sensitivity of the model may lead to a higher false positive rate, bringing additional compliance costs and freezing risks to normal users and small and medium-sized institutions. On the other hand, the deep analysis of behavioral data has also raised concerns about privacy protection. How to draw a boundary between preventing fraud and maintaining citizens' data rights has become a balancing point that Russian regulators must continuously calibrate after the upgrade.

$1.3 Million Frozen: India's Asset Defense Line

In contrast to Russia's focus on revealing methods and reconstructing risk control, India's signal this time leans more towards "hard interception" on the asset side. According to a report from India's law enforcement agency, in January 2026, it froze approximately $1.3 million in cryptocurrency-related assets, described as "diversified forms including cryptocurrencies," but the official did not disclose specific currencies or detailed compositions. Regarding the same batch of cases, publicly mentioned related amounts are about $3.2 million, indicating that although the frozen amount does not cover all involved assets, the scale of the funds involved has far exceeded that of typical retail disputes, resembling a medium-sized on-chain fundraising or money laundering network. Due to the current information primarily coming from a single public announcement, there are still significant unknowns regarding the specific scam paths, the number of participants, and the details of on-chain transfers, especially the precise distribution of frozen assets and whether they exist entirely in on-chain asset form, all lacking further verification. In this situation, interpretations of the amount scale and asset structure must remain restrained: the $1.3 million freeze itself indicates that Indian law enforcement has begun to view cryptocurrency-related assets as directly controllable targets for asset recovery, but the true complexity of the case, whether there are cross-border flows and multi-layer account concealment, still requires more authoritative materials to complete the picture. Given the limited information, it can be confirmed that India is attempting to set a new defense line at the end of the funding chain through asset freezes to compensate for the shortcomings in front-end identification and real-time interception capabilities.

Why Black Market Transactions Are Expanding Under Regulatory Pressure

At the domestic regulatory level, both Russia and India are trying to compress the gray space of cryptocurrency trading through institutional constraints. The amendment to the "Digital Financial Assets Law" passed in Russia in 2025 requires platforms involved in cryptocurrency business to operate with licenses, bringing many service providers that previously operated on the regulatory edge into the licensing and auditing framework, intending to clarify responsible parties through mandatory compliance and reduce the opportunities for disguised brokers and black market platforms to infiltrate the system from the source. India has adopted a high-pressure strategy in its tax system, imposing a 1% TDS withholding tax on cryptocurrency transactions starting in 2024. Some public discussions mentioned that after the introduction of this policy, underground trading volume rose by about 30%, but this data itself still needs more authoritative sources for verification. Regardless of the specific numbers, the combination of high tax burdens and strict regulations has a direct behavioral consequence: it pushes some traders towards over-the-counter transactions and overseas platforms. To avoid tax burdens, reporting obligations, or KYC requirements, some funds choose to circulate outside of regulation, shifting trading matching from regulated local platforms to peer-to-peer social networks or overseas services that cannot be effectively managed, creating new blind spots for law enforcement. A comparison of Russia and India reveals that the regulatory goal is to "compress the gray space," that is, to clarify a "regulatable white area" through licensing systems, taxes, and compliance obligations. However, in reality, when the costs and thresholds of formal channels are raised to a certain extent, some activities are "forced out" to survive in the black market and cross-border gray areas. The subtlety of this balance lies in the fact that the more regulators want to tighten the valve through centralization and licensing, the more they need to be alert to whether the outflow of traffic has exceeded controllable limits. Once the black market expands beyond statistical measures, systemic risks may not decrease but rather shift to more difficult-to-visualize and track levels.

Where Cross-Border Fund Tracking Gets Stuck

The reason cryptocurrency fraud has become a transnational stubborn disease is that asset transfers naturally cross multiple exchanges and judicial jurisdictions, and the recent actions by Russia and India have also exposed shortcomings in cross-border cooperation. In practice, scam groups often utilize multi-layer addresses, cross-chain transfers, and platform accounts registered in different countries to split and disperse funds. Any single country's law enforcement agency often can only see partial slices and struggles to restore the complete path. Combining Russia's crackdown on 38 groups within a year and India's single freeze of $1.3 million in assets, it can be seen that the current cooperation between the two countries in information sharing and mutual recognition of evidence is still limited, with more of their enforcement actions being internal cycles: Russia relies on the risk control and AI capabilities of domestic financial institutions like Sber for screening, while India processes cases involving local users and accounts through its law enforcement agency and judicial system, making on-chain intelligence and suspicious fund flows prone to "disconnection" at national borders. There are also collaborative bottlenecks between traditional financial institutions, international exchanges, and domestic law enforcement agencies regarding KYC standards, suspicious transaction reporting mechanisms, and data access permissions. For example, while large exchanges operate in multiple jurisdictions, they need to repeatedly weigh local laws, privacy protections, and compliance obligations when faced with user information and transaction record requirements from different countries. Even if domestic banks and payment institutions detect suspected fraudulent flows to overseas platforms, they may not be able to quickly obtain the counterpart's account details and freezing cooperation. If this situation continues, even if a certain country adopts a high-pressure crackdown mode, fraudulent activities are likely to migrate to jurisdictions with weaker regulations through geographical arbitrage, forming a flow chain of "escaping from strict areas to lenient ones." The enforcement intensification in a single country, from a global perspective, becomes a geographical redistribution rather than an overall reduction.

After Regulatory Upgrades, the Real Test Begins

Integrating the clues from Russia and India reveals an increasingly clear trend: cryptocurrency fraud is evolving from rough single-point inducement to a disguised compliance model cloaked in "formal licensing," extending its lifespan through cross-border transfers and money laundering networks. The disguised brokers exposed in Russia represent a deep simulation of traditional financial service forms, while the cases in India vaguely reveal a composite structure of cross-border fund flows and diversified asset forms. In both paths, relying solely on past blacklists and simple rules is becoming unsustainable. To truly hedge against this evolution, AI risk control, licensing systems, and tax design must be upgraded as a whole: AI has the capability to provide early warnings of abnormal patterns at the behavioral level, but without clear licensing boundaries and reasonable tax structures, normal flows will continue to be pushed into opaque areas, weakening the model's coverage; licensing systems can clarify responsible parties but need to be bound to dynamically updated technological means; otherwise, "paper compliance" can easily be exploited by impersonators; taxes are a key lever for adjusting the distribution of funds between compliance and underground; once the design is unbalanced, it can inadvertently provide growth space for the black market. Looking ahead, a more realistically feasible path is to build a new cooperation framework around multinational joint intelligence sharing: promoting standardization in KYC processes, achieving synchronized marking of cross-border risk addresses and suspicious patterns in on-chain monitoring, and establishing more transparent mutual recognition rules for freezing and returning involved assets, making it truly impossible for funds to escape when attempting to cross borders for "laundering." For ordinary investors, the most direct insight remains simple: do not be easily swayed by narratives like "licensed" or "partnered with large institutions," and do not believe in promises of returns far exceeding market levels or stories of so-called "gold medal brokerage teams." Whether in Russia, India, or any market, once funds are directed into opaque platforms and accounts, even if regulatory and technological upgrades continue, the difficulty and cost of recovery often far exceed what individuals can bear.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。