Russian courts have begun applying a 2025 legal amendment that treats the use of circumvention tools, including VPN services, as an aggravating circumstance in criminal cases. According to the independent outlet Verstka, the first identified cases involved drug-purchase prosecutions in the Tula Region and the Komi Republic, where judges cited the defendants’ use of restricted-access tools when handing down sentences.
The development matters beyond the two cases themselves. It shows that a measure introduced in mid-2025 is no longer theoretical: it is entering routine court practice and expanding the legal risk attached not just to an underlying offense, but to the method used to reach blocked online resources.
A legal shift from internet control to criminal punishment
Russian authorities formally added the use of VPNs and similar tools to the list of aggravating circumstances in July 2025, with the change taking effect on September 1. In criminal law, an aggravating circumstance can influence how a judge assesses the seriousness of conduct and the appropriate punishment. That makes this amendment significant. It does not create a separate offense of using a VPN in these cases; it increases the potential consequences when such a tool is linked to another crime.
That distinction is central to understanding the policy. For years, Russian internet regulation has focused on blocking content, pressuring platforms, and restricting access to information. The new court practice pushes further by treating digital evasion itself as evidence of greater culpability. The logic is clear: if a person bypassed state restrictions to reach a site, the court may read that as a more deliberate form of conduct.
What the first cases show — and what remains unclear
In the Novomoskovsk case, a court sentenced a local resident to one year and eight months in prison after finding that he had illegally acquired drugs in large quantities. The verdict, as described by Verstka, said he used a “software and hardware tool for accessing information resources to which access is restricted” to find the drugs online. The court treated that as an aggravating factor, and the defendant pleaded guilty.
The second case, heard in Ukhta in February, ended with a three-year suspended sentence on the same charge. There too, the court considered the use of a circumvention service an aggravating circumstance because it had been used to access the site where the drugs were purchased.
One important ambiguity remains. From the published fragment of one verdict, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the tool was a conventional VPN or another means of bypassing restrictions, such as Tor. That matters less for the legal principle than for the technical detail: Russian authorities use broad language that can sweep multiple categories of circumvention technology into the same regulatory frame.
Why this matters beyond drug cases
The immediate cases concern narcotics, an area where online marketplaces and anonymous browsing tools have long drawn law enforcement attention. But the broader implication is that a new layer of criminal exposure now attaches to digital behavior that may appear secondary to the offense itself. Once courts accept that use of a restricted-access tool reflects heightened intent, the approach can be applied in other categories of cases where prosecutors argue that online evasion played a role.
That creates a wider deterrent effect. VPNs, Tor, and related tools are used for many reasons, from privacy protection to reaching blocked websites. When the same technologies are folded into criminal sentencing as markers of aggravation, the state gains another instrument for discouraging their use. The boundary between internet governance and criminal justice becomes thinner.
A signal about the direction of Russian digital policy
These rulings fit a broader pattern in Russian regulation: technical tools once treated mainly as objects of censorship policy are increasingly being absorbed into punitive legal frameworks. That does not mean every use of a VPN will trigger criminal liability. It means that when prosecutors can connect circumvention to an underlying offense, courts now have explicit grounds to weigh that fact against a defendant.
For readers trying to gauge the significance, the key point is not the number of cases identified so far, but the precedent they establish. Once a sentencing practice appears in written verdicts, it gives investigators, prosecutors, and judges a template. Verstka’s reporting suggests that template is now in place.
