Tajikistan has moved to criminalize the use of stolen electricity for cryptocurrency mining, signaling a strict enforcement shift around December 2025. The measure, aimed at curbing significant grid losses, imposes large fines and multi‑year prison terms for crypto miners using stolen power.
Penalties for crypto miners using stolen power
The new legal framework makes electricity theft for mining a criminal offense with fines between 15.000 and 75.000 somoni (≈ $1,600–$8,250) and custodial sentences from two to eight years; organized or large‑scale theft can attract five to eight years behind bars and some reports indicate penalties of up to ten years. Authorities cite material damage from illegal mining: roughly $3.52 million lost in the first half of 2025 and more than $16.5 million in related electricity theft since January. Coverage of the law and its penalties appears in industry reporting, including an accounting of the statutory fines and prison terms by Phemex.
Operational detail: ASICs are specialized integrated circuits designed to perform one type of computation—here, hashing for cryptocurrency mining—with far higher efficiency than general‑purpose processors.
Implications for operators, data centers and sustainable mining
For operators and institutional users, the shift raises immediate compliance and operational friction points. Facilities that previously tolerated informal power arrangements now face legal exposure and the risk of seizure, prosecution or costly retrofitting. That increases steps per operation: operators must validate energy provenance, integrate metering and permissions into onboarding flows, and document contracts for auditors and treasury teams.
Treasurers and exchanges should expect a rise in counterparty friction. Due‑diligence workflows will need to include energy‑sourcing attestations and clearer transaction state records proving legitimate infrastructure. For dApp and wallet UX, the practical impact is an added verification step: services that facilitate mining payouts or custody must surface permission transparency and attach attestations to counterparties, increasing confirmation modals and lengthening the onboarding funnel.
The enforcement also accelerates a market signal toward licensed, grid‑compliant and renewable‑anchored mining. Industry reporting notes technological and commercial trends that reduce energy intensity: modern ASICs and dedicated green data centers can lower kilowatt‑hour consumption per hash. Separately, reports indicate over 54% of Bitcoin’s power in 2025 is sourced from renewables, a shift that reduces regulatory friction for miners who can prove legitimate, green supply chains. The convergence between AI compute demand and existing mining infrastructure creates an operational opportunity to repurpose compliant facilities for diversified workloads, but only when energy sourcing is lawful and transparent.
Global context matters: similar enforcement and utility losses have been documented elsewhere, with Malaysia reporting large aggregate losses to illegal power usage and Russian utilities recording multi‑million‑dollar damages; these precedents illustrate why states are prioritizing grid integrity over ad hoc mining activity.
Tajikistan’s criminalization of electricity theft for crypto mining raises the compliance bar for operators and institutional counterparties and makes energy provenance a primary operational requirement. Next verified milestone: monitoring published enforcement outcomes and reported reductions in illicit grid losses to assess whether criminal penalties materially reduce unauthorized mining and improve grid stability.
