The lawyer assessed the consequences of using a VPN in Russia

Using a VPN by itself does not entail criminal liability for the average user. Consequences may arise if a crime is committed or its traces are hidden using such a service. Ekaterina Kutuzova, a lawyer, human rights activist, and member of the Adyghe Republican Bar Association, told Izvestia about this on October 28.

According to her, there is no provision in the legislation providing for punishment for the very fact of using a VPN. Administrative responsibility under Article 13.53 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is not related to the use of the service, but to the deliberate search for extremist materials. The fine under this article ranges from 3,000 to 5,000 rubles.

When using a VPN can affect the punishment

The criminal consequences, according to the lawyer, are not related to the VPN itself, but to a crime that could have been committed or hidden with its help. Starting in the summer of 2025, the use of hardware and software to access blocked information resources, which include a VPN, can be considered an aggravating circumstance when committing a crime.

Access is limited: popular services have partially stopped working for VPN users

What resources are we talking about and what to do in the case of foreign applications

Can a VPN be a reason for arrest

According to Kutuzova, in the practice of the investigation, the use of VPNs, auto-deletion of messages, encryption of traffic and hidden contacts may be indicated as a possible sign of a desire to obstruct the investigation. However, such circumstances are not independent evidence of guilt. The court evaluates them together with other case materials.

There must be grounds provided for by the criminal procedure legislation for choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention. In particular, the court takes into account the gravity of the charges, the risk of absconding, the possibility of exerting pressure on witnesses or destroying evidence. Therefore, the totality of digital signs alone does not replace the necessary grounds for detention and does not prove a person's guilt.

For an ordinary user who uses a VPN to access blocked resources or protect privacy, the criminal law risk, according to the lawyer, does not arise from the very fact of using the service. What matters is whether a person commits a specific crime with his help or tries to hide his tracks.

The use of disappearing messages or encrypted messengers can also be considered in the framework of an already initiated criminal case, but in itself is not proof of guilt.