Digital Smugglers: The Legal Status and Liability of Droppers and Money Mules (Why They Are Prosecuted and How They Defend Themselves)

[Professor]

Introduction: Cogs in the Global Machine of Deception
The glamorous narratives surrounding carding feature brilliant hackers and mysterious organizers. However, the bulk of solved cases involve arrests of low-level actors — droppers (recipients of goods) and money mules (recipients and movers of money). It is they, as "digital smugglers," who leave physical traces in the real world, becoming the first targets of law enforcement. Their legal fates are a clear illustration of how the law punishes perpetrators, often leaving the architects of the crime in the shadows.

Chapter 1: Legal Status: Why They Are Tried as More Than Just "Messengers"​

From a criminal law perspective, droppers and mules are not neutral couriers. They are co- perpetrators or accomplices in a complex crime.

Dropper:

• Actual role: Receives and transfers goods purchased with stolen money. Physically "cashes out" the digital theft.
• Qualification: His actions fall under the objective element — "theft of another's property... by fraudulent means." He is a key link, without whom the final result would be impossible. The court classifies him as a co-perpetrator, even if he was unaware of all the details of the scheme.
• Aggravating circumstances: Large amounts and especially large amounts. The amount is calculated based on the value of the goods received/shipped, which is easily achieved.

Money Mule:

• Actual role: Provides its own or controlled bank accounts/cards for the receipt and transfer of stolen funds, breaking the financial trail.
• Qualification:
  1. As a co-perpetrator of fraud - if he was aware of the criminal nature of the origin of the money and participated in its movement.
  2. As the perpetrator of a more serious crime. This is the key article for mules. The punishment under this article is more severe, and it does not require proof of detailed knowledge of the theft scheme. It is sufficient to prove that they knew the money was of criminal origin and carried out financial transactions to make them appear legitimate.

Legal logic: The law views them not as “duped intermediaries,” but as conscious participants in a criminal chain whose actions directly cause damage and ensure the success of the entire operation.

Chapter 2: Defense Tactics in Court: Between "Full Confession" and "Victim of Deception"​

The defense of droppers and mules is based on two main, often mutually exclusive, strategies:

Strategy 1: "Little Blood" - Full confession and cooperation with the investigation.

• Contents: The defendant fully admits guilt, repents, and actively contributes to the solution of the crime (gives testimony, provides correspondence logs, telephone numbers, and describes methods of communication).
• Objective: To take advantage of the notes to articles, which allow for release from criminal liability if a person actively contributed to the disclosure of a crime, voluntarily compensated for the damage, and there is no other element of a crime in his actions.
• Risk: Becoming the prosecution's primary witness against the organizers, which could be dangerous. Investigators may also find your cooperation insufficiently proactive.

Strategy 2: “I am a victim” – Denial of awareness and intent.

• Summary: The defendant claims he was unaware of the criminal origin of the money/goods. He was misled: he was hired as a "logistics specialist," "remote assistant," or "online sales assistant." He believed he was transferring funds for business or receiving legitimate packages for resale.
• Defense arguments:
  • Lack of direct evidence of knowledge (no correspondence with an explicit discussion of thefts).
  • I followed detailed instructions from strangers, which is typical for remote work.
  • He did not receive an extremely high remuneration (for example, he was paid 10-15%, which can be thought of as a “courier’s salary”).
  • His low social status, youth, and financial illiteracy are evidence of his gullibility.
• The weakness of the strategy:Investigators and courts increasingly reject these arguments. Their counterarguments:
  1. "Rule of Reasonable Care": An adult of legal capacity should understand that an offer to "just receive a package/transfer money" for a high interest rate is suspicious.
  2. Conspiratorial methods: The use of anonymous messengers (Telegram), a ban on asking questions, and payment in cryptocurrency all indicate an awareness of illegality.
  3. Scale of operations: Regular operations worth hundreds of thousands of rubles are difficult to attribute to naivety.

Strategy 3: Dispute the amount of damages and your share.

• Contents: The defense attempts to prove that the damages attributed to a particular dropper/mule are less than the prosecution claims, or that they are not responsible for the entire amount that passed through the scheme.
• Objective: To reclassify the case under a section of the article with a lesser penalty (for example, from “large” to “significant” amount).

Chapter 3: Why Are They Caught First and Judged Harshly? Judicial and Law Enforcement Logic​

1. The "soft target" principle: The organizers are well hidden. The dropper and mule are the "soft underbelly": they leave physical traces (cameras at pickup points and ATMs, biometric data upon receipt, IP addresses, SIM card data).
2. Breaking the criminal chain: Arresting even the lowest-level operatives disrupts logistics and forces organizers to recruit new people, waste time and resources, and make new mistakes.
3. Pressure to "promote" the case: A dropper/mule is the key to obtaining operational information (phone numbers, communication style, wallets), which can lead to operators and technicians.
4. Preventative and demonstrative effect: Harsh sentences (actual terms, not suspended ones) should demonstrate to society, especially young people, that "easy money" leads to prison. This is an attempt to reduce the influx of new workers into the industry.
5. Simplified proof: Proving that a specific person received a package or transferred money is technically easier than proving involvement in a hacker attack or leading a botnet.

Chapter 4: Typical Outcomes: From Probation to Prison​

The outcome of the case depends on the amount of damage, the presence of a criminal record, the position during the investigation, and the skills of the lawyer.

• Small amounts, first conviction, active cooperation: High chance of probation or even exemption from criminal liability under the aforementioned charges. However, there is an obligation to pay damages.
• Large/especially large size, passive position: Actual term of imprisonment in a penal colony or general penal colony.

Conclusion: Penalty Imbalance as a Systemic Problem
The legal fate of digital smugglers reveals a profound injustice and imbalance in the fight against carding.

• Small fish receive real prison sentences, lose years of life and prospects, becoming hostages of the system.
• The sharks who organize the schemes often remain in the shadows, using a low-level buffer, corrupt connections, or being located in another jurisdiction.

This creates a vicious cycle: the system, by punishing the most vulnerable and ill-informed, doesn't solve the problem, but merely replenishes the industry's cannon fodder. Young people, seeing harsh sentences for droppers but no arrests of the true beneficiaries, draw a paradoxical conclusion: "The main thing is not to be the last in the chain, but to not participate in it."

Thus, harsh prosecution of droppers and mules is a necessary but insufficient condition for defeating carding. It's a tactic of putting out fires until the source is cut off. As long as the organizers enjoy impunity, the army of digital smugglers will be replenished with new naive or desperate individuals, doomed to become bargaining chips in the grand game between the law and criminals.