A proposal to prohibit the storage of undeclared cash exceeding 1 million rubles has drawn opposition from the Russian government. A draft assessment prepared by the government commission on legislative activities questions the viability of Anatoly Wasserman’s initiative, which he proposed as a member of the State Duma from the Just Russia – For Truth faction. The assessment, which has been circulated to the press, notes that the document from the commission would ultimately undermine the intended purpose of the bill and could hinder ordinary citizens who keep savings outside the banking system. The information is attributed to TASS, which published details of the commission’s analysis.
The core idea of the Wasserman proposal was to amend the Criminal Code to introduce a new article addressing the illegal circulation of cash. The draft would require individuals to hold cash in rubles or foreign currency in an amount equal to or greater than 1 million rubles and would impose criminal liability on those who fail to notify tax authorities or to disclose the source of such funds. The author’s intent, as outlined in the draft, was to curb undisclosed cash holdings and ensure traceability of large cash balances.
According to the government commission, making such holdings criminally actionable would not satisfy the criteria for criminalization. The document argues that the move could create significant adverse consequences for law-abiding citizens who prefer cash for personal reasons or who rely on savings outside formal banking channels. It is pointed out that current Russian law does not ban the possession of cash itself, nor does it require individuals to report cash holdings merely by virtue of their existence. The commission’s analysis also emphasizes that transactions conducted outside the framework of entrepreneurial activity can remain cash-based, without explicit limits on the amount involved, under existing regulations.
The discussion surrounding the draft reflects broader debates about the role of cash in the economy, financial surveillance, and privacy. Advocates for cash limits often cite the benefits of increasing transparency and reducing the informal economy, while opponents warn of unintended consequences for ordinary people, including the elderly, rural residents, and small savers who may rely on cash as a trusted store of value or as a practical means of payment when banking services are inconvenient or inaccessible. The commission’s opinion underscores these tensions by warning that criminalizing large cash holdings could push some citizens toward riskier financial behavior or push them into informal arrangements that are harder to regulate rather than deter illicit activity.
At present, there appears to be no consensus on the best approach to balancing the objectives of tax enforcement, financial integrity, and individual financial autonomy. The draft bill remains at the stage of consideration, with lawmakers gathering opinions from various stakeholders. The phrase encountered in published reports—an ongoing “opinion gathering”—suggests that further revisions and clarifications are likely before any formal legislative action is taken. The analysis also highlights the need to carefully assess enforcement mechanisms, potential penalties, and the practical implications for ordinary households that maintain liquidity in cash for reasons ranging from personal preference to regional access issues. The evolving discussion continues to capture attention as the legislative process moves forward, with observers watching for any concrete steps toward a resolution or further refinement of the proposal. (Source: TASS)