Criminal Liability of DAOs
Criminal defense of DAO members, developers and governance token holders imputed for fraud, money laundering or corporate offenses.
Last updated:
DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are organizations whose governance is exercised through voting by token holders on a blockchain. Although their design seeks to eliminate intermediaries and central authorities, Spanish criminal law does not recognize the DAO as an autonomous entity exempt from personal liability. When a DAO is involved in fraud, money laundering, market manipulation or corporate offenses, the key question is: who responds, and why?
Legal Nature in Spain
In the absence of specific regulation, doctrine and the first judicial pronouncements assimilate the DAO without formal legal personality to an irregular civil society (Art. 1669 CC) or to a community of goods. The consequence is relevant: criminal liability falls on the individuals who acted with factual control, not on the DAO as such. If the DAO is wrapped in a foundation (typical in Switzerland, Cayman, BVI), the foundation may be subject to imputation, but individual liability persists.
Imputation of Tokenholders and Developers
Imputation of tokenholders requires proving more than mere token holding: active participation in votes approving the criminal conduct, knowledge of the design or material execution must be present. Core developers have greater exposure due to their technical control: if they retain the multisig keys, they can modify smart contracts, freeze funds or redirect them, which places them in a guarantor position. The defense must explore the project's real degree of decentralization and the effective capacity of each actor.
Defense Through Effective Decentralization
The most solid defense is effective decentralization: establish that the client, even being a prominent developer or tokenholder, had no unilateral control over the criminal conduct. Requires technical evidence (multisig configuration, token distribution, voting history) and documentary evidence (whitepaper, public documentation, internal communications). When it is proven that the DAO operated as a genuinely decentralized organization, individual imputation weakens except for those who exercised specific decisions.
DAO Treasury and Money Laundering
The DAO's treasury concentrates much of the criminal risk: if it receives funds of illicit origin or is used to channel the proceeds of an offense, those who control the multisig keys or vote on its disposal may be exposed to money laundering (Art. 301 CP). The defense must establish the lawful traceability of contributions, the transparency of the votes and the absence of knowledge of any illicit origin of the managed funds.
Strategies for Developers
The developer is the most exposed figure due to their technical control. The defense is built by documenting the real degree of that control: whether the code was delivered and the administration keys renounced (renounced ownership), whether decisions required a governance quorum external to the developer, and whether their contribution was punctual or structural. Establishing the effective loss of technical control delimits the period of liability and may exclude it for facts subsequent to the exit.
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Fraud or market manipulation | Imprisonment 1-6 years + fine, depending on gravity and type of project. |
| Money laundering (Art. 301 CP) | Imprisonment 6 months to 6 years + fine, if the DAO is used to launder funds. |
| Corporate offense (Art. 290 CP) | Imprisonment 1-3 years + fine, if there is falsification of information to investors. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Passive Tokenholder
For investors without active participation: prove mere holding, absence of vote in criminal proposals and unawareness of the design.
Dev External to Core
For technical collaborators not in the core: prove limited contribution and absence of control over multisig keys.
Foundation Filtering
When a foundation exists, channel imputation toward the legal entity and protect individual members.
Crypto Fraud Defence: Scams, On-Chain Tracing, MiCA & Asset Seizure
Crypto-related criminal cases combine classical offences — fraud (Arts. 248-250 CP), money laundering (Art. 301 CP), tax fraud (Art. 305 CP) and criminal organisation (Art. 570 bis CP) — with the technical reality of blockchain: pseudonymous wallets, mixers, cross-chain bridges, stablecoins and DeFi protocols. There is no autonomous "crypto offence": prosecutors must fit the facts into an existing criminal type and prove the on-chain flow with admissible expert evidence. Defence therefore demands both criminal-law expertise and independent blockchain forensics.
Penalty Table: Crypto-Asset Offences
| Offence | Article | Description | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic crypto fraud | Arts. 248-249 | Deception inducing the transfer of crypto-assets (fake broker, fake platform) | 6 months – 3 years |
| Aggravated fraud | Art. 250 | Special gravity, multiplicity of victims or high amount | 1 – 6 years |
| Money laundering with crypto | Art. 301 | Concealing illicit origin via mixers, bridges or exchanges | 6 months – 6 years + fine |
| Crypto tax fraud | Art. 305 | Evaded quota over €120,000 per fiscal year (Form 721) | 1 – 5 years + fine |
| Computer damage / DeFi exploit | Art. 264 | Exploit damaging systems or data (smart-contract attack) | 6 months – 3 years |
| Criminal organisation | Art. 570 bis | Structured group running crypto fraud at scale | 2 – 8 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Independent Blockchain Counter-Expert
Chainalysis, Elliptic or TRM tracing graphs are interpretations, not certainties. An accredited own expert can challenge address clustering heuristics, mixer assumptions and the attribution of a wallet to a specific person.
Market Contingency vs. Deception
A loss is not a crime. Many crypto disputes are investment risk, protocol failure or contractual breach — civilly reproachable but criminally atypical. The defence isolates genuine deception (Art. 248) from ordinary market loss.
Good Faith & KYC Diligence
Documented KYC, lawful source of funds, Form 721 reporting and declared capital gains rebut the knowledge element of laundering and fraud. Willful blindness must be proven, not presumed.
Criminal-Tax Bifurcation
Voluntary tax regularisation can activate the Art. 305.4 CP exemption, while the administrative track (CNMV/SEPBLAC) is handled separately from the criminal process, where defences may diverge.
Key Case Law
The Supreme Court accepts that the appearance of a legitimate trading platform or broker can constitute the 'sufficient deception' of Art. 248: the victim's error is measured against the credibility of the staged operation, not against the abstract diligence of an expert investor.
On-chain tracing is valid evidence but subject to expert contradiction. Traceability of a flow to a wallet does not, by itself, prove the intent (dolo) of its holder; the prosecution must still establish knowledge and control.
Using undeclared crypto gains to make further investments may integrate self-laundering (Art. 301.1) in concurrence with tax fraud (Art. 305), creating double criminal exposure that the defence must dismantle element by element.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.