The Czech Ministry of Justice has been highly criticized after it revealed that an independent audit accepted Bitcoin donations from convicted offenders without proper due diligence.
According to a July 31 report released by Grant Thornton and shared by the Department on X, authorities were unable to assess the legal and reputational risks associated with the donation. The auditor said the ministry ignored the red flag and failed to apply standard governance protocols before approving the transaction.
The Bitcoin donation was made by Tomáš Jirčikovaky, who was previously convicted of running the sheep market, a dark web platform used to sell illegal drugs. The ministry sold the bitcoin, which was later donated, for CZK 956.8 million, about $45 million, without addressing the suspicious origins of the funds.
The audit noted that there was no evidence that the Department of Justice properly evaluated the transaction before accepting it. Despite clear warning signs, the ministry added that it was unable to treat the donations as high risk.
Meanwhile, the report also criticized the Ministry of Finance for accepting revenue from Bitcoin sales without formal review.
Grant Thornton also explained that the entire process would be treated as a serious governance course, and warned that both ministries were subjected to legal and ethical scrutiny.
Czech MP Ivan Madrova responded to the findings by stating that the audit confirmed long-standing public concerns. She said:
“The ministry should not accept gifts. There is still an important question mark. There is no answer. I don’t even know how much the audit cost.”
The scandal sparked widespread backlash in June, leading to the lack of confidence in the government and the resignation of then-Judicial Minister Pavel Brazic.
In his response, Blazek downplayed the results of the audit. He identified the report as no legal violations and claimed that it simply repeated “publicly known risks and assumptions.”
He added:
“The so-called summary of the first part of the audit does not indicate a violation of any particular legal obligation or regulations, which argues from the beginning of the “case.” There are no new discoveries, and it’s a useful text in the article heading, but there are old content. ”
