The popularity of stablecoins for cryptocurrency payments has surged in recent years, with numerous global companies embracing these new payment methods. However, despite this trend, crypto payments remain prohibited for retail users in several countries, including China, Indonesia, Russia, and Turkey. This creates a fascinating legal gray area: while domestic crypto payments are banned, using cryptocurrency to pay for services abroad may still be legally permissible, a situation that is beginning to attract scrutiny from global regulators.
The Global Rise of Stablecoin Payments
Stablecoins have seen a significant increase in popularity for cryptocurrency payments, with many international companies adopting these digital payment methods. This growing trend reflects a desire for more efficient and convenient cross-border transactions. The widespread acceptance of stablecoins by businesses highlights their utility in facilitating global commerce, even as regulatory landscapes remain fragmented.
Domestic Bans vs. International Legality
Despite the global embrace of stablecoins, several countries, including major economies like China, Russia, and Turkey, maintain prohibitions on domestic crypto payments for retail users. However, legal experts suggest that these bans often do not explicitly extend to the use of cryptocurrency for services obtained abroad. This distinction creates a complex legal environment where the legality of a crypto transaction can depend on its geographical locus.
Case Study: Russian and Turkish Travelers in Georgia
A recent example of this legal overlap emerged in early June 2025, when Georgian travel company Tripzy began accepting payments in Tether’s USDt stablecoin via CityPay. This new feature allows international clients to book services using stablecoins, offering “more freedom and convenience in payment,” especially for guests from countries with currency restrictions. Given that Georgia is a popular destination for tourists from Russia and Turkey, where domestic crypto payments are restricted, the new payment option raises pertinent questions about cross-border legality.
Legal Interpretations of Cross-Border Crypto Use
Legal experts like Meric Paldimoglu, a lawyer in Turkey, and Yuriy Brisov, founder of D&A CryptoMap, offer similar interpretations regarding the legality of cross-border crypto payments. Paldimoglu states that Turkish law typically does not apply when a Turkish citizen shops from a company based abroad. Brisov notes that Russian laws primarily forbid residents from accepting crypto for contractual purposes within Russia, not for payments made outside the country.
Regulatory Overlaps Attract Global Scrutiny
While these regulatory overlaps may not create explicit conflicts between jurisdictions, they are increasingly drawing the attention of global authorities. Brisov warned that if companies like Tripzy in Georgia begin widely accepting crypto from Russian tourists, Brussels might perceive this as a loophole. This could lead to international pressure on Georgia to choose sides, especially if it becomes seen as a gateway for money from sanctioned regions.
FATF Warns on Illicit Stablecoin Use
Brisov’s concerns are echoed by recent warnings from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regarding the escalating role of stablecoins in facilitating illicit transactions. The FATF reported a rise in stablecoin use by illicit actors, including those from the DPRK and terrorist financiers, with most on-chain illicit activity now involving stablecoins. The agency has provided a detailed report on Anti-Money Laundering (AML) measures and plans a targeted report on stablecoins in early 2026.
The Future of Cross-Border Crypto Payments
The ongoing debate surrounding the legality of cross-border crypto payments highlights a critical area of evolving international financial regulation. As stablecoins continue to gain traction for their efficiency in global transactions, the need for harmonized international laws becomes more apparent. Without clear, consistent guidelines, the potential for regulatory loopholes and increased scrutiny from global compliance bodies will persist, impacting both legitimate users and those seeking to exploit the system.
