Revolut – What Could Reach the Tax Office in 2026?

Discussions about cryptocurrency-related crime have long ceased to be purely theoretical. This is evident both in interactions with technology companies supporting law enforcement and in parliamentary sessions of cybercrime teams. One conclusion emerges: the tools themselves, even the most advanced, are not enough. Something more is needed.

Is the Polish police really struggling with crypto?
This is a myth. The common belief about the technological lag of Polish services in this area is not confirmed in practice -- the expertise level of officers dealing with cryptocurrency crimes can be quite high. The problem lies elsewhere. Simply having analytical tools does little if there are no coherent procedures and legal frameworks that allow for a quick response. Without this, the matter ends up in formalities -- without recovering funds, without charging anyone.

What does a summons from the tax office look like in practice?
Let's take a specific example. Accounts in institutions like Revolut fall under the CRS system -- automatic exchange of tax information. After the Polish tax office receives data about the balance in such an account, it sends a letter to the taxpayer. It directly references information provided by a foreign tax administration and demands an explanation of the source of the funds accumulated in the account. This is the same mechanism mentioned above in another form -- a discrepancy between the balance and the tax declaration triggers specific, formal actions.

Why do time and jurisdiction matter more than tracking down the perpetrator?
In cryptocurrency cases, speed is everything. If stolen funds end up in a jurisdiction outside Europe, pursuing a specific individual ceases to be a priority. It is more important to block the assets as quickly as possible. Even very good analysis of on-chain flows does nothing without a procedure that allows for the rapid freezing of funds. And it is precisely at the intersection of technology, procedures, and law that gaps often arise -- the same ones that criminals exploit.

Does artificial intelligence solve cases on its own?
No, and this is perhaps one of the more common misunderstandings. AI increasingly supports the work of investigators, but in a completely different way than is often portrayed in the media. Artificial intelligence does not independently identify culprits or create evidence -- its work involves accelerating the analysis of vast data sets, correspondence, or documentation, and catching fragments that may be relevant to the case. The assessment of this evidence and the decision to use it in court always rests with humans. This is an important procedural distinction. An AI tool in itself is not evidence, but it is becoming an increasingly important element of the analytical support in cases involving the theft of crypto assets.

Will MiCA realistically help in prosecuting criminals?
It depends on how it is implemented. The mere fact of introducing regulations is not the question that interests me the most -- what matters is whether they provide law enforcement with tools adequate to the scale of the crimes committed. Today, it happens that money laundering using cryptocurrencies, even on a very large scale, is often classified in a way that results in relatively low criminal liability. In cases related to terrorism, drug trafficking, or arms, as well as child exploitation, this disproportion ceases to be a minor oversight and becomes a systemic problem. MiCA could change this, but only if it is implemented functionally -- and not just restrictively towards entities that are already operating legally.

Money mules -- the weakest link in the system
Individuals acting as so-called financial mules are a separate problem. Without appropriate legal sanctions, they operate in conditions of low criminal risk, making them an attractive link in criminal structures. Greater legal pressure at this stage of the chain could yield a greater deterrent effect than further formal obligations imposed on legally operating companies in the crypto sector.

What does this mean for the cryptocurrency industry in 2026?
Two things. First -- the effectiveness of law enforcement depends not only on technology but primarily on the law and procedures that underpin it. Second, the proper functioning of legal firms in an increasingly regulated environment is gaining importance. Compliance with MiCA and AML, skillful cooperation with law enforcement -- this is no longer a theoretical topic. It is a daily element of operational risk that requires a conscious approach and solid legal support.