TAX EVASION AS A FORM OF ECONOMIC CRIME IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY

ABSTRACT

The article examines tax evasion as a form of economic crime that undermines fiscal stability, fair competition and trust in public institutions. The relevance of the topic is determined by the transformation of tax offences under the influence of digital platforms, cross-border payments, virtual assets and professional enabling services. The purpose of the article is to identify the main economic and institutional consequences of tax evasion and to justify the need for integrated countermeasures combining tax administration, financial intelligence, inter-agency cooperation and digital risk analysis. The research is based on a comparative and institutional approach, using international standards and analytical materials of the OECD, FATF, IMF and European Commission. The article concludes that tax evasion should not be treated only as a private violation of tax rules. It is a systemic economic crime that distorts markets, reduces budget revenues, supports the shadow economy and may serve as a predicate offence for money laundering.

Keywords: tax evasion, economic crime, shadow economy, financial security, digital economy, money laundering, tax compliance, financial intelligence.

Economic crime has changed significantly under digitalisation and financial globalisation. Fraud, corruption, tax evasion and money laundering now form complex systems of illicit financial behaviour in which intermediaries, digital platforms and offshore structures are used to conceal income and transfer assets outside the control of national authorities.

Tax evasion occupies a special place among economic crimes. Deliberate evasion directly reduces public revenues available for infrastructure, education, healthcare and security, while creating unfair competitive advantages for firms operating outside the legal tax framework. Law-abiding businesses face higher relative costs, while dishonest actors accumulate illicit capital.

The relevance of this topic is confirmed by international standards. The OECD notes that tax crimes have become increasingly global and technologically sophisticated [1], while FATF treats tax crimes as designated offences connected with money laundering risks [2]. Combating tax evasion is therefore not only a tax administration task, but an element of economic security and anti-money laundering policy.

The methodological basis of the article combines institutional and comparative analysis of international regulatory approaches, drawing on OECD, FATF, IMF and European Commission materials. These sources allow tax evasion to be examined not only as a legal offence, but also as an economic and institutional phenomenon.

The article proceeds in three stages: defining the economic nature of tax evasion, analysing its consequences for fiscal stability, competition and public trust, and systematising countermeasures with emphasis on inter-agency cooperation, digital monitoring and risk-based supervision.

Tax evasion can be defined as deliberate illegal behaviour aimed at reducing tax obligations through concealment of income, understatement of the tax base, fictitious transactions, false invoices, unregistered employment, cash schemes, transfer pricing abuse or offshore structures. It differs from tax avoidance, which refers to the use of legal loopholes. In practice, the boundary between aggressive tax planning and criminal evasion may be difficult to draw, especially where complex corporate structures and professional advisers are involved.

From an economic point of view, tax evasion distorts competition. Firms that evade taxes receive an artificial cost advantage, allowing them to underprice competitors and accumulate undeclared profits. This effect is especially dangerous in sectors with high cash turnover and weak reporting discipline, where honest firms may be forced either to exit the market or to adopt illegal practices in order to survive.

Tax evasion is also closely linked with the shadow economy. IMF research across 158 countries estimates the average shadow economy at 31.9 percent of GDP over 1991–2015 [3]. While not a direct measure of evasion, this figure illustrates the scale of activity outside formal taxation, resulting in revenue losses and reduced capacity for development planning.

The first threat is fiscal. When taxes are not collected, budget deficits rise, public investment falls and the burden on compliant taxpayers grows. This creates a negative feedback loop: as evasion becomes more visible, tax morale weakens and trust in institutions declines.

The second threat concerns market competition. Companies that conceal revenues or use false deductions do not compete on productivity or quality — they compete through illegal cost reduction, rewarding opacity rather than efficiency and damaging long-term economic development.

The third threat is institutional. Large-scale tax evasion often requires intermediaries: accountants, lawyers, shell company providers and other professional enablers. The OECD specifically emphasises addressing such professionals [1], since complex schemes are typically designed by actors with specialised knowledge of regulation, banking and corporate law.

The fourth threat is criminal-financial. Tax evasion may generate proceeds that later have to be concealed, integrated into the legal economy or transferred across borders. FATF standards include tax crimes related to direct and indirect taxes among designated categories of offences, which means that they can be relevant for money laundering prevention [2]. Therefore, tax crime investigation should not be separated from financial intelligence and anti-money laundering systems.

Digitalisation has created both new risks and new tools for combating tax evasion. Online trade, platform employment, instant payments and crypto-assets facilitate rapid cross-border movement of funds and may enable under-reporting of income or concealment of beneficial ownership. At the same time, digital technologies enhance the capacity of tax authorities to cross-reference data sources, detect anomalies and apply risk-based controls.

VAT fraud illustrates the importance of data-driven enforcement. The European Commission estimates the VAT compliance gap in the EU at EUR 128 billion in 2023 [4] — a signal of the scale of revenue losses associated with weak compliance, even if it also captures insolvency and administrative errors.

Digital tools reduce tax evasion when combined with institutional capacity. Electronic invoices, online cash registers, automatic information exchange and beneficial ownership registers increase transparency. However, technology alone is insufficient: without legal powers, trained personnel and inter-agency cooperation, data does not translate into effective enforcement.

The first mechanism is criminalisation of serious tax offences. The OECD Ten Global Principles require comprehensive laws that criminalise tax offences and provide effective sanctions [1], since administrative fines alone may not deter large-scale schemes where expected gains exceed potential penalties.

The second mechanism is inter-agency cooperation. Tax authorities hold income and transaction data, while financial intelligence units, police, prosecutors and customs services hold other relevant information. OECD guidance stresses that multiple agencies are typically involved in detecting and prosecuting tax crimes [5]. Without legal channels for information exchange, schemes remain fragmented across institutional borders.

The third mechanism is asset recovery. Tax evasion becomes economically rational when offenders retain illegal gains after detection. Freezing, seizing and confiscating proceeds is therefore both punitive and preventive: if illicit gains cannot be safely used, the appeal of tax crime diminishes.

The fourth mechanism is regulation of professional enablers. While lawyers, accountants and corporate service providers play a legitimate role in business, they can be misused to construct opaque structures. Effective policy must distinguish lawful assistance from deliberate facilitation, requiring reporting obligations, sanctions for complicity and professional ethical standards.

The fifth mechanism is international cooperation. Cross-border elements — offshore companies, foreign accounts, transfer pricing, digital services — make national enforcement insufficient on its own. Exchange of tax information, mutual legal assistance and cooperation between financial intelligence units are therefore central to any effective anti-evasion policy.

The analysis shows that tax evasion is a multidimensional threat. Its consequences extend beyond unpaid taxes to undermine fair competition, expand the shadow economy and generate proceeds for money laundering. Effective responses must therefore go beyond traditional tax audits, combining enforcement with voluntary compliance incentives: clear rules, digital services and visibly fair application of the law. Excessive punitive pressure risks pushing activity into the informal sector, so enforcement should be predictable and risk-based, focused on deliberate violations rather than technical errors.

The most effective model is an integrated system in which tax administration, financial monitoring, customs control, anti-corruption enforcement and criminal prosecution operate within a coordinated framework — one especially critical in the digital economy, where transactions are fast, cross-border and data-intensive.

Conclusion

Tax evasion is a significant form of economic crime because it damages the fiscal, competitive and institutional foundations of the economy. It reduces budget revenues, distorts market competition, supports the shadow economy and may become connected with money laundering and other financial crimes. In the digital economy, tax evasion becomes more sophisticated due to cross-border transactions, virtual assets, platform business models and professional enabling services.

The article confirms that combating tax evasion requires an integrated approach. Key measures include criminalisation of serious tax offences, risk-based digital monitoring, inter-agency information exchange, asset recovery, regulation of professional enablers and international cooperation. The strategic goal is not only to punish offenders, but also to create an economic environment in which legal compliance is more rational and less costly than participation in shadow schemes.

References:

1. OECD. Fighting Tax Crime – The Ten Global Principles, Second Edition [Electronic resource]. – OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021. – Access mode: https://doi.org/10.1787/006a6512-en (date of access: 14.05.2026).
2. FATF. The FATF Recommendations [Electronic resource]. – Paris: FATF, 2012, amended October 2025. – Access mode: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Fatf-recommendations.html (date of access: 14.05.2026).
3. Medina L., Schneider F. Shadow Economies Around the World: What Did We Learn Over the Last 20 Years? // IMF Working Paper. – 2018. – No. 18/17. – Access mode: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484338636.001 (date of access: 14.05.2026).
4. European Commission. VAT Gap [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/fight-against-vat-fraud/vat-gap_en (date of access: 14.05.2026).
5. OECD. Effective Inter-Agency Co-operation in Fighting Tax Crimes and Other Financial Crimes. Third Edition [Electronic resource]. – OECD Publishing, Paris, 2017. – Access mode: https://doi.org/10.1787/af874d4a-en (date of access: 14.05.2026).
6. OECD. Standard Setting for Tax and Crime [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/standard-setting-for-tax-and-crime.html (date of access: 14.05.2026).