Art. 37 of 282-FZ creates a formal role for foreign custodians and brokers who hold digital currency or digital rights on behalf of Russian clients: the “foreign nominee holder” and “foreign authorised holder.” They are expressly entitled to act without a power of attorney in their clients’ interests when acquiring digital currency and digital rights (Art. 37(1)) — but the price of that standing is a disclosure obligation that runs to the issuer, the courts, the Bank of Russia, investigators and the tax authority, backed by a Bank of Russia power to suspend operations on the relevant digital accounts for up to six months (Art. 37(8)) if you don’t comply.
What we do
- Disclosure regulation and workflow: a written protocol for how your firm identifies beneficiaries of digital rights held for Russian clients and responds to disclosure requests under Art. 37(3), including the exception for foreign collective investment schemes with more than 50 participants;
- Response drafting for each requesting authority: the issuer of the digital rights, Russian courts and arbitrazh courts, the Bank of Russia, investigative bodies (where a senior investigator has given consent, per Art. 37(4)), and the tax authority acting through the depositary or operator (Art. 37(7)) — each has different form and content requirements;
- Challenging unlawful or overbroad orders: where a Bank of Russia order or request exceeds what Art. 37 actually requires, we prepare the objection and, where needed, litigate it;
- Suspension-risk review: assessing your current disclosure practice against Art. 37(8) before a request arrives, so a first missed deadline doesn’t turn into a six-month operations freeze;
- Managed offboarding of Russian clients: where continuing to hold Russian clients’ digital rights is no longer commercially or legally viable, a structured wind-down that keeps the disclosure obligations satisfied throughout.
How it works
- We review your current custody and disclosure practice against Art. 37(1), (3), (4), (7) and (8).
- We draft or update your disclosure protocol and the response templates for each type of requesting authority.
- On retainer, we handle live requests as they arrive — verifying the requesting authority, drafting the response, and flagging anything that looks like overreach.
- If a Bank of Russia order is issued, we advise on compliance timing and, where warranted, prepare a formal objection.
What we don’t do
We do not help a custodian withhold beneficiary information it is legally obliged to disclose under Art. 37(3)-(4), (7) — the six-month suspension power in Art. 37(8) exists precisely for that scenario, and structuring around it exposes both your firm and your clients. We do not confirm the identity of every Russian-authority request through unofficial channels; verification runs through official channels only, consistent with our existing law enforcement request verification practice. We do not quote penalty amounts beyond what Art. 37(8) itself states (up to six months’ suspension) — 282-FZ does not set out administrative or criminal fines, and no implementing amendments have been adopted yet.
Who this is for
- Foreign custodians and prime brokers holding digital currency or digital rights for Russian clients under a nominee or authorised-holder arrangement;
- Compliance teams who received their first Art. 37 disclosure request and have no counsel on the ground to verify or respond to it;
- Firms deciding whether continuing to serve Russian clients under this regime is still worth the compliance overhead.
FAQ
Do we have to disclose beneficiary information to a Russian investigator directly?
Only where a senior investigative official has given consent, per Art. 37(4) — a request from a line investigator without that consent does not meet the statutory bar, and we verify that before you respond.
What if we genuinely cannot identify the beneficiary — a fund with retail investors, for example?
Art. 37(3) carves out foreign collective investment schemes with more than 50 participants from the full disclosure duty; whether your structure qualifies is a fact-specific assessment we do as part of the protocol review.
How fast do we need to respond to avoid the six-month suspension?
Art. 37(8) does not fix a single statutory deadline in the text itself — the risk arises from a Bank of Russia order following non-compliance, so the safer course is to have the disclosure workflow ready before a request ever lands, not to time a response against a deadline.
Can the Bank of Russia suspend our operations without warning?
The suspension follows an order for non-compliance, not a first request — which is why we prioritise getting the initial response right and, if an order does issue, assess whether it can be challenged.
Is this related to your existing law enforcement request desk?
Yes — it is a continuation of that practice, scoped specifically to the Art. 37 nominee/authorised-holder disclosure regime rather than general law enforcement data requests.
Pricing
Protocol review and disclosure workflow setup: pricing on request, scoped after reviewing your current custody structure and client base. Ongoing request-response retainer: pricing on request, sized to expected monthly request volume. Background on Art. 37 and the wider law is in our breakdown of 282-FZ; related enforcement work is covered by our local counsel, service and asset tracing practice.
Get started
Send a short description of your custody arrangement and any request you’ve already received to law@vfs.consulting or use the contact form. We reply within one business day under NDA.
