According to the Brazilian Attorney General and "specialist in criminal law and criminal procedure" Leandro Bastos Nunes:

"Crypto assets can be seen as a type of online payment method that emerged in the past decade. For a long time, they were limited to the realm of sophisticated virtual entrepreneurs. However, they have gradually gained supporters and made their way into the market, which has triggered concerns among numerous government representatives.

Indeed, Bitcoin is a virtual currency and a type of payment method that can be used for various commercial transactions. It has already been used in the buying and selling of foreign currency in some Brazilian exchange houses (JAKITAS, 2019).

Although it has gained popularity, Bitcoin is not yet recognized by the Central Bank of Brazil. It lacks the corresponding backing, as it does not have a physical equivalent in paper currency, and the actual value cannot be proven, as stated in Bacen Communication 31.379/11.

In this context, the question arises as to whether holding amounts exceeding US$1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) in Bitcoin would constitute the crime of currency evasion, specifically improper evasion.

Elements of the Crime of Currency Evasion

Regarding the criminal offense of currency evasion established by Law 7.492/86, it is important to describe it in full:

Article 22. To conduct unauthorized currency exchange operations with the intention of promoting currency evasion from the country:

Penalty - Imprisonment from 2 (two) to 6 (six) years, and a fine.

Sole paragraph. The same penalty applies to anyone who, by any means, promotes the unauthorized exit of currency or foreign exchange to abroad, or maintains undeclared deposits thereof with the competent federal authority.

We previously argued that as long as the Bitcoin system was not regulated by the CMN (National Monetary Council) and/or the Central Bank, it would be impractical to consider it as currency evasion per se (first part of the sole paragraph of Article 22 of the LCSF) or as improper evasion. The practice could not be classified as a deposit, currency, or foreign exchange, as it is not linked to any financial institution, and the operations are not recognized or regulated by the aforementioned entities of the national financial system.

Furthermore, we maintained that only in the case of the main offense under Article 22 of Law 7.492/86 could the offense of evasion be considered, in principle. This would occur when the acquisition of crypto assets is used to carry out an illegal currency exchange contract, with the objective of currency evasion (sending the values to another country in violation of Central Bank rules), as can be seen from the analysis of the following decision excerpt from the STJ (Superior Court of Justice)."

What a "fine" take, isn't it? LOL