Author: Dr. Andrius Puksas
Date: 23-12-2025
Illicit activities in the electronic environment can no longer be considered non-traditional. Instead, the digital space has evolved into an environment where illicit actors can operate more comfortably and with a greater sense of security over longer periods of time. Delayed detection enables them to reallocate resources, shift operational locations, and remain less accessible to law enforcement bodies. While electronic activities are traceable through logs and other digital footprints, time itself becomes a valuable asset.
This situation inevitably recalls the well-known phrase “Catch me if you can”. In theory, you can – if you are technologically advanced and able to react quickly. This logic increasingly applies to law enforcement bodies, which continuously update their operational methodologies, techniques, hardware, and software. However, technological advancement alone is not sufficient. At least two additional elements are crucial: timely access to data and the capacity to analyse it effectively, as well as enhanced cooperation with other authorities, including data sharing and operational assistance beyond national jurisdictions.
Here we encounter a familiar constraint once again – jurisdiction. Jurisdiction ultimately determines whether an illicit actor can be “caught” at all, and whether “you can” or “you cannot” is decided not by technology, but by legal boundaries. All of the above-mentioned factors – and many more – are decisive in determining whether actions against illicit actors are successful.
In the electronic space, competition is often a competition against time. More advanced technologies enable faster decision-making, but a critical question remains: who owns and uses these technologies – illicit actors, or publicly funded authorities? Technological advantage provides additional time, which in some cases becomes crucial.
In illicit activities, the hands of illicit actors are long– illegal markets are wide and often hidden. Yet when it comes to jurisdiction, the key question is whether the hands of those responsible for ensuring public safety are long enough: long enough to protect potential victims, and long enough to prevent less engaged individuals from being drawn into illicit activities. Once again, the circle brings us back to the issue of jurisdiction – a question that is not always easy to answer.
This reality is well captured by Europol, which notes that “organised crime is exploiting this evolving landscape and proliferating exponentially. It benefits from advanced technologies, is active across multiple jurisdictions, and has strong connections beyond EU borders” (The Changing DNA of Serious and Organised Crime, 2025). It is difficult to deny that AI-driven systems are increasingly used on both the “dark” and the “bright” sides. From the perspective of trace obfuscation, they are certainly helpful; from the perspective of analysis and detection, they are beneficial as well.
Both sides may be equipped with powerful and advanced technologies, and this technological competition is unlikely to be stopped or decisively distorted. As a result, effective responses still require more traditional measures: educating consumers to recognise illicit trade, encouraging appropriate behaviour, and ensuring timely reporting to responsible authorities. At the same time, cooperation is essential. As the saying goes, “one soldier does not win a battle alone”. Through well-developed cooperation networks, it becomes possible to achieve timely and effective responses – also helping to mitigate jurisdictional constraints.
However, cooperation brings its own challenge: the level of preparedness of cooperation partners. It is no secret that illicit actors tend to choose jurisdictions where regulation is weaker, sanctions are less severe, or enforcement mechanisms function poorly. Where all of these conditions coincide, the environment becomes particularly attractive for illicit activity.
Yet, if customers – at least a significant share of potential customers – are properly educated, responsible authorities are adequately equipped and financed, and cooperation with partners functions effectively without reliance on “weaker jurisdictions”, the phrase “Catch me if you can” loses its ironic appeal. At that point, the discussion returns to time – not as a technological advantage without results, but as a decisive factor enabling meaningful and effective action.
