In early March, the Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan made a bold move, announcing that it was preparing to take the European Union to court. A few days earlier, the bloc had threatened to ban exports of sensitive dual-use goods to Kyrgyzstan in order to prevent their reexport to Russia—a proposal that enraged Kyrgyz officials, who fear that could harm their country’s reputation as Central Asia’s most law-abiding, Western-friendly state. The EU’s concerns about covert shipments of dual-use goods to Russia from Kyrgyzstan are valid, but they may well obscure an even larger issue. Over the past year, Moscow has developed a crypto-based sanctions-evading channel powered by the Russian fintech company A7 and the ruble-linked cryptocurrency A7A5. Part of these flows are routed through Kyrgyzstan.

Western sanctions cut off their targets from global finance, including the SWIFT messaging network, cross-border correspondent banking relationships, and clearing mechanisms for dollar payments. For sanctioned economies, the workaround is obvious: developing Western-proof financial channels. This is what the Kremlin set out to do in late 2024, when it supported the creation of A7, a Moscow-based start-up that specializes in cryptocurrencies. The firm looks innocuous on paper, but scratch beneath the surface, and the Kremlin’s fingerprints appear everywhere. Fugitive Moldovan oligarch Ilan Shor founded A7 after Russia granted him citizenship. The state-owned bank Promsvyazbank, which serves Russian defense firms, controls 49 percent of A7. To underline the Kremlin’s interest in the venture, Russian President Vladimir Putin attended a virtual ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of A7’s Vladivostok branch in September 2025.

In early March, the Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan made a bold move, announcing that it was preparing to take the European Union to court. A few days earlier, the bloc had threatened to ban exports of sensitive dual-use goods to Kyrgyzstan in order to prevent their reexport to Russia—a proposal that enraged Kyrgyz officials, who fear that could harm their country’s reputation as Central Asia’s most law-abiding, Western-friendly state. The EU’s concerns about covert shipments of dual-use goods to Russia from Kyrgyzstan are valid, but they may well obscure an even larger issue. Over the past year, Moscow has developed a crypto-based sanctions-evading channel powered by the Russian fintech company A7 and the ruble-linked cryptocurrency A7A5. Part of these flows are routed through Kyrgyzstan.

Western sanctions cut off their targets from global finance, including the SWIFT messaging network, cross-border correspondent banking relationships, and clearing mechanisms for dollar payments. For sanctioned economies, the workaround is obvious: developing Western-proof financial channels. This is what the Kremlin set out to do in late 2024, when it supported the creation of A7, a Moscow-based start-up that specializes in cryptocurrencies. The firm looks innocuous on paper, but scratch beneath the surface, and the Kremlin’s fingerprints appear everywhere. Fugitive Moldovan oligarch Ilan Shor founded A7 after Russia granted him citizenship. The state-owned bank Promsvyazbank, which serves Russian defense firms, controls 49 percent of A7. To underline the Kremlin’s interest in the venture, Russian President Vladimir Putin attended a virtual ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of A7’s Vladivostok branch in September 2025.

A7 offers access to a unique product: A7A5, a cryptocurrency issued by the obscure Kyrgyz firm Old Vector and regulated by Kyrgyz financial rules. It is also backed by Promsvyazbank’s deposits. Three features of A7A5 make it clear that its creators designed it for sanctions evasion at an industrial scale. First, the Promsvyazbank backing ensures virtually unlimited liquidity. Second, Russian firms can convert rubles into A7A5, circumventing the restrictions on ruble payments and Russian-held accounts implemented by all major cryptocurrency exchanges since 2022. Third, A7A5 holders can use the platform’s instant swap service to convert their coins into mainstream, dollar-pegged stablecoins, such as tether. Conveniently, the service lacks know-your-customer (KYC) processes to verify identities, hindering efforts to attribute transactions to sanctioned Russian firms.

This anonymity may sound counterintuitive, since the blockchain technology behind cryptocurrencies relies on public ledgers. However, “public” does not mean “identified.” The ledger records transfers between wallet addresses, not identifiable individuals or firms—like a highway where every car is visible but none has a license plate identifying its owner. The fact that A7A5’s crypto-to-stablecoin swap service has no KYC processes further reinforces anonymity. While Western security services can monitor A7A5 transactions in real time, connecting a wallet to a sanctioned Russian firm is a more difficult undertaking. Attribution requires names, documents, or intercepted communications, which the entire A7A5 architecture is designed to deny.

Experts estimate that A7A5 turnover stood at around $72 billion–$93 billion in 2025, a range that is equivalent to as much as one-third of Russia’s entire imports bill. Meanwhile, A7 processed some $39 billion in transactions linked to sanctions evasion, a figure roughly equivalent to Russia’s prewar annual import bill for high-tech—and often dual-use—goods. The list of cryptocurrency addresses doing business with A7 reads like a who’s who of sanctions evasion networks. Many of the addresses are tied to Chinese, Southeast Asian, and South African firms that procure sensitive electronic goods, dual-use equipment, and shipping services that Moscow can use for its war effort. TRM Labs, which specializes in blockchain investigations, has also tied A7-linked addresses to U.S.- and European Union-designated terrorist groups such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hamas.

Western policymakers have no simple solution for curbing crypto-enabled sanctions evasion. For starters, consider the obvious issue: A7, Promsvyazbank, and Old Vector are all under U.S. sanctions, meaning they already operate outside Western financial channels and their owners have nothing to lose. Moreover, addressing sanctions evasion often resembles a game of whack-a-mole: Designate an entity, and it will soon reopen under a different name. Garantex, a Russian crypto exchange that specialized in money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing, illustrates this challenge. Washington sanctioned Garantex in 2022, yet the exchange still operated for three more years. After a joint U.S.-EU law enforcement operation seized the firm’s domains and servers in Germany and Finland in 2025, five other exchanges replaced Garantex within weeks.

Western policymakers also face a tricky political environment domestically. In the United States, President Donald Trump, his family, and some of his business partners have embraced cryptocurrencies with gusto. He has launched his own memecoin, embraced dollar-backed stablecoins that networks such as A7 plug into, and pushed for financial deregulation. Just a few weeks after A7 fell under U.S. sanctions, Donald Trump Jr. was a VIP speaker at the Token2049 cryptocurrency conference in Singapore, where A7A5 was a platinum sponsor. A7A5 abruptly disappeared from the program after Reuters sent a request for comment to the organizers.

Meanwhile, European policymakers also know that there is little they can do about Russia’s cryptocurrency activities. MiCA, the EU’s cryptocurrency regulation, only applies to EU-based exchanges. Therefore, the legislation cannot reach networks operating entirely outside European jurisdiction, such as A7/A7A5 or even tether. Implementing new sanctions on Russia-enabled cryptocurrencies would also be easier said than done. The bloc had planned an EU-wide ban on all crypto transactions with Russia-based counterparties in its 20th sanctions package, but Hungary’s and Slovakia’s vetoes over energy measures have put the new package in limbo.

Not all is lost, though. EU policymakers still have options to curb the rise of cryptocurrencies designed for illicit activities, such as A7A5. One option would be to collaborate with the United States to pressure issuers of dollar-pegged stablecoins to implement robust KYC checks. The goal would be to prevent anonymous A7A5 holders from converting their assets into mainstream stablecoins. With Trump in the White House, however, this is probably a steep ask—but it remains worth a try. Alternatively, the EU could pressure A7A5’s weak points over which the bloc has leverage—its dependence on Kyrgyzstan—to disrupt the network’s operations. Threatening to ban the export of EU-made dual-use products to Kyrgyzstan could be a useful stick in such discussions.

Moscow’s newfound interest in cryptocurrencies is not an outlier. Tehran has offered to accept cryptocurrency payments for its drone and missile sales, and Pyongyang steals cryptocurrency to boost its revenues. Together, these developments raise the question of how effective sanctions are against the growth of financial networks that the U.S. deregulation drive is helping to build. The Western sanctions toolbox was designed for a world of banks and wire transfers, not one in which cryptocurrencies can be exchanged for dollars in seconds—no questions asked. With A7A5, Moscow has provided a proof of concept. It’s likely only a matter of time before other sanctioned regimes follow in its footsteps.

Is Kalshi Legal in Washington State? AG Says No, Files Suit

The complaint, filed in King County Superior Court, targets Kalshi‘s binary event contracts, wagers priced between one cent and 99 cents that pay out $1 to winners and nothing to losers. Washington argues those contracts meet the state’s statutory definition of gambling under RCW 9.46.0237: “ staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person’s control.”

Brown’s office is seeking a permanent injunction, full restitution for Washington residents’ losses, disgorgement of Kalshi’s profits, and civil penalties for each violation. Investigators also want a full accounting of every Washington user’s transactions.

The AG’s office did not limit its targets to sports betting. The complaint accuses Kalshi of offering markets on elections, Supreme Court cases, entertainment outcomes, public health data, and international conflicts. “For Kalshi, every event, every tragedy is nothing more than a potential way for Americans to risk their fortunes,” Brown said in a statement accompanying the filing.

Kalshi, founded in 2018 and publicly launched around 2021, operates as a CFTC-designated contract market for event contracts — a category of commodity derivatives. The company expanded aggressively into sports betting in 2025 and has marketed its platform as “legal betting in all 50 states.”

The company moved the case to federal court immediately after the filing, citing exclusive federal jurisdiction. A Kalshi spokesperson said Brown’s office had a scheduled meeting with Kalshi before filing suit and that going forward with the complaint was premature. Kalshi also disputed specific market claims in the complaint, saying it does not offer war markets as alleged.

Washington has among the strictest gambling statutes in the country. Its 1889 state constitution prohibited gambling on state lands. The 1973 Gambling Act tightly limited most forms of wagering, and the 2006 legislation explicitly banned online gambling. State officials insist Kalshi operates outside all three frameworks.

Washington is not acting alone. At least 11 states have issued cease-and-desist orders against prediction market platforms. Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi in March 2026. Nevada obtained a temporary restraining order barring Kalshi from offering sports, politics, and entertainment markets, and a separate 60-day preliminary injunction covering Coinbase’s Kalshi-powered products. An Ohio federal judge ruled Kalshi must follow state gambling laws for sports betting.

Kalshi has also notched federal wins. Courts in New Jersey and Tennessee ruled in its favor. A case in Michigan involves rival platform Polymarket, which filed preemptively. Utah, where Kalshi sued to block a proposed ban, remains active.

The legal conflict centers on a direct clash between state police powers and federal commodities law. The CFTC has issued guidance on manipulation and is weighing additional rules. Trump administration CFTC Chair Brian Selig and prior agency amicus briefs have sided with federal preemption.

Legal experts tracking the cases say the disagreement could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. States argue prediction market platforms are sportsbooks operating without state licenses, targeting young adults through leaderboards, push notifications, and influencer promotions. Kalshi disputes that framing, saying its exchange is structurally different from state-regulated sportsbooks and casinos.

Washington residents using Kalshi may lose access to the platform while litigation proceeds. The state’s restitution claim draws on the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, which allows consumers to reclaim gambling losses.

The case is in its earliest stages. The federal transfer ruling will determine which court hears the matter first.

FAQ 🔎

• What is Kalshi being sued for in Washington? Washington AG Nick Brown alleges Kalshi operates an illegal online gambling service in violation of the state’s Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act.
• Is Kalshi legal in Washington State? Washington says no — the state is seeking a permanent injunction to block Kalshi from operating within its borders.
• How does Kalshi respond to the Washington lawsuit? Kalshi moved the case to federal court, arguing it operates under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction that preempts state gambling laws.
• What states have taken action against Kalshi? Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, and at least 11 other states have filed lawsuits, criminal charges, or cease-and-desist orders against Kalshi or rival prediction markets.

Victims scammed at cryptocurrency ATMs in New Hampshire could be reimbursed if they report the fraud within 14 days under a bill that cleared the Senate Thursday. The bipartisan legislation aims to stem an increase in cryptocurrency scams that cost Granite Staters $22 million in 2024.

A crypto scam plays out like most financial fraud, except the scammer persuades the victim to deposit cash into a cryptocurrency ATM. Once the ATM converts the money into cryptocurrency, it becomes very difficult to trace and reclaim.

Hampton’s police chief told lawmakers just over $2.6 million was lost to scammers in his town in 2024. The average age of the victims was 66.

Sen. Virginia Birdsell, a Hampstead Republican, urged colleagues to pass the legislation in the Senate Thursday.

“This is becoming a scourge on our elderly,” she said.

Under the bill, cryptocurrency ATM operators would have to hold a person’s first deposit for 48 hours to give them time to cancel it if they detect a scam. Operators could not accept more than $2,000 a day from a person. And operators would have to refund a scam victim if the victim reports fraud to the operator and authorities within 14 days.

Nearly 25 other states have similar laws, though many allow a victim to be funded within 90 days of a deposit.

Massachusetts is suing a crypto ATM operator, Bitcoin Depot, for allegedly allowing criminals to scam victims with its machines. Maine reached a $1.9 million settlement with the same operator this year and is giving victims until Wednesday to file a claim.

The New Hampshire bill heads next to the House.