Multifactor Model of Jurisdiction: Reviewing Locus Delicti in a Decentralized Metaverse

Objective: to critically analyze the possibility of extending the existing spatial criminal law principles to acts committed in the decentralized virtual worlds of the metaverse, and to develop proposals that include updating the approach to establishing jurisdiction over such virtual crimes.

Methods: the methodological basis of the research is a set of general scientific methods and approaches of scientific cognition – dialectical, formal logical (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction), systematic, as well as private scientific methods – formal legal, legal modeling, interpretation. The study relies on an analysis of judicial practice, foreign legislation, technical features of blockchain technologies and decentralized autonomous organizations, which makes it possible to identify gaps in legal regulation and propose conceptually new solutions for determining the crime scene in a virtual environment.

Results: the study revealed a limited implementation of the current generally accepted principles of determining jurisdiction in relation to virtual crimes that do not have physical coordinates. The proposed multifactorial jurisdiction model redefines the “crime scene” taking into account factors such as the offender’s digital identity, the nature and location of digital assets, platform management protocols, and the actual damage caused. Assumingly, the immutable and verifiable nature of blockchain transactions can serve as a legal equivalent of a physical presence to establish personal jurisdiction, allowing criminal prosecution to be initiated even in cases where the actual location of the offender remains unknown.

Scientific novelty: the paper presents an approach that implies the fundamental transformation of reactive, adaptive legal regulation principles into a proactive, comprehensive framework designed specifically for the unique challenges of the metaverse. A paradigm-changing hypothesis was put forward: that a permanent (stable) digital footprint of the offender in virtual spaces can serve to exercise jurisdiction. The model systematically presents the idea of harm as the most important link between virtual offenses and their consequences in the real world.

Practical significance: it is currently impossible to apply legal norms and rules to relations in the metaverse, taking into account their specifics. The main provisions and conclusions of the study can be used to improve the mechanisms of legal regulation of the metaverse and to form international protocols on data exchange and mutual legal assistance for searching and collecting evidence based on blockchain technology. They may help to develop legislative initiatives aimed at creating integrated legal mechanisms that are scalable and resistant to rapid technological changes, characteristic for the digital environment.

1. Aakula, A., Sandhu, K., Srinivasan Venkataramanan, V., Alluri, R. R., & Saini, V. (2023). Forging Unbreakable Identities: The Biometric-Blockchain Nexus. Nanotechnology Perceptions, 19, 644–652. https://doi.org/10.62441/nano-ntp.v19i3.5078

2. Bains, P., Ismail, A., Melo, F., & Sugimoto, N. (2022). Regulating the crypto ecosystem: The case of unbacked crypto assets. International Monetary Fund.

3. Benson, V., Turksen, U., & Adamyk, B. (2024). Dark side of decentralised finance: a call for enhanced AML regulation based on use cases of illicit activities. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 32(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-04-2023-0065

4. Bhowmik, A. K. (2024). Virtual and augmented reality: Human sensory‐perceptual requirements and trends for immersive spatial computing experiences. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 32(8), 605–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsid.2001

5. Brey, P. (2025). Will There Be a Metaverse? In The Metaverse: A Critical Assessment. SpringerBriefs in Ethics (pp. 33–57). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93471-1_3

6. Chimni, B. S. (2022). The international law of jurisdiction: A TWAIL perspective. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156521000534

7. Esakov, G. A. (2015). Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: contemporary global trends. Statute, 8, 82–89. (In Russ.).

8. Han, E., Miller, M. R., DeVeaux, C., Jun, H., Nowak, K. L., Hancock, J. T., Ram, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2023). People, places, and time: a large-scale, longitudinal study of transformed avatars and environmental context in group interaction in the metaverse. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(2), zmac031. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac031

9. Hosseini, S., Abbasi, A., Magalhaes, L. G., Fonseca, J. C., da Costa, N. M., Moreira, A. H., & Borges, J. (2024). Immersive interaction in digital factory: Metaverse in manufacturing. Procedia Computer Science, 232, 2310–2320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.02.050

10. Ioannıdıs, S., & Kontıs, A. P. (2023). The 4 Epochs of the Metaverse. Journal of Metaverse, 3(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.57019/jmv.1294970

11. Judge, B., Nitzberg, M., & Russell, S. (2025). When code isn’t law: rethinking regulation for artificial intelligence. Policy and Society, 44(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae020

12. Kim, H. S., Kim, S., & Lee, E. J. (2025). The mirror of the metaverse: an exploration of reciprocal effects between self-views and avatar-based self-presentation. Human Communication Research, 51(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaf005

13. Komalavalli, C., Saxena, D., & Laroiya, C. (2020). Overview of blockchain technology concepts. In Handbook of research on blockchain technology (pp. 349–371). Academic Press.

14. McStay, A. (2023). The metaverse: Surveillant physics, virtual realist governance, and the missing commons. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00613-y

15. Niesel, Z. (2023). Crypto Contacts: Jurisdiction and the Blockchain. Tulane Law Review, 98, 917.

16. Özkan, A., & Özkan, H. (2024). Meta: XR-AR-MR and mirror world technologies business impact of metaverse. Journal of Metaverse, 4(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.57019/jmv.1344489

17. Panda, S. K. (2023). Revolution of the metaverse and blockchain technology. In Metaverse and immersive technologies: An introduction to industrial, business and social applications (pp. 97–125). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394177165.ch4

18. Payer, A. (2023). The Territorial Principle as a Basis for State Criminal Jurisdiction: Particularly with Regard to Cross-Border Offences and Attempts, and to Multiple Parties to an Offence Acting in Different Countries. International Criminal Law Review, 23(2), 175–238. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10151

19. Pesqueira, A. (2025). The Impact and Potential. In A. Pesqueira, & A. de Bem Machado (Eds.), Navigating Privacy, Innovation, and Patient Empowerment Through Ethical Healthcare Technology (pp. 217–254). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7630-0

20. Pogorzelska, K. (2024). Does Using Satellite Data for Sustainable Development Justify Unsustainable Use of Outer Space? In Regulation of Outer Space (pp. 7–25). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003512677

21. Qin, R., Ding, W., Li, J., Guan, S., Wang, G., Ren, Y., & Qu, Z. (2022). Web3-based decentralized autonomous organizations and operations: Architectures, models, and mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 53(4), 2073–2082. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2022.3228530

22. Richter, S., & Richter, A. (2023). What is novel about the Metaverse? International Journal of Information Management, 73, 102684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102684

23. Rokhsaritalemi, S., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., & Choi, S. M. (2020). A review on mixed reality: Current trends, challenges and prospects. Applied Sciences, 10(2), 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020636

24. Ryngaert, C. (2023). Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts. German Law Journal, 24(3), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.24

25. Scharfman, J. (2024). Decentralized autonomous organization (dao) fraud, hacks, and controversies. In The Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Fraud Casebook, Volume II: DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, Meme Coins, and Other Digital Asset Hacks (pp. 65–106). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60836-0_3

26. Schuler, K., Cloots, A. S., & Schär, F. (2024). On DeFi and on-chain CeFi: how (not) to regulate decentralized finance. Journal of Financial Regulation, 10(2), 213–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjad014

27. Segovia, M., & Garcia-Alfaro, J. (2022). Design, modeling and implementation of digital twins. Sensors, 22(14), 5396. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22145396

28. Syed, T. A., Siddiqui, M. S., Abdullah, H. B., Jan, S., Namoun, A., Alzahrani, A., Nadeem, A., & Alkhodre, A. B. (2022). In-depth review of augmented reality: Tracking technologies, development tools, AR displays, collaborative AR, and security concerns. Sensors, 23(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010146

29. Trozze, A., Kamps, J., Akartuna, E. A., Hetzel, F. J., Kleinberg, B., Davies, T., & Johnson, S. D. (2022). Cryptocurrencies and future financial crime. Crime Science, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-021-00163-8

30. Wei, W. (2023). Using actor–network theory to revisit the digitalized tool in social design. The Design Journal, 27(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2023.2279836

31. Wendehorst, C. (2023). Proprietary rights in digital assets and the conflict of laws. In Blockchain and Private International Law (pp. 101–127). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004514850_007