The Czech Ministry of Justice has been heavily criticized after an independent audit revealed it accepted a Bitcoin donation from a convicted criminal without proper due diligence.
According to a July 31 report released by Grant Thornton and shared by the ministry on X, officials failed to assess the legal and reputational risks tied to the donation. The auditors said the ministry ignored red flags and could not apply standard governance protocols before approving the transaction.
The Bitcoin donation was made by Tomáš Jirčikovaky, who was previously convicted for operating Sheep Marketplace, a dark web platform used for illegal drug sales. The ministry later sold the donated Bitcoin for 956.8 million CZK, roughly $45 million, without addressing the questionable origin of the funds.
The audit noted that there was no evidence that the Ministry of Justice properly evaluated the transaction before accepting it. It added that despite clear warning signs, the ministry failed to treat the donation as high-risk.
Meanwhile, the report also criticized the Ministry of Finance for accepting the proceeds from the Bitcoin sale without conducting any formal review.
Grant Thornton also described handling the entire process as a serious governance lapse, warning that it exposed both ministries to legal and ethical scrutiny.
Czech MP Ivan Madlova reacted to the findings by stating that the audit confirms long-standing public concerns. She said:
“The ministry should not have accepted any gift. There are still significant question marks. And answers are missing. I’d rather not even know how much that audit cost us.”
The scandal sparked widespread backlash in June, culminating in a failed no-confidence vote against the government and the resignation of then-Justice Minister Pavel Blažek.
In his response, Blažek downplayed the audit’s findings. He claimed the report identified no legal violations and merely 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 specific legal obligation or regulation, which I have been asserting from the beginning of the ‘affair’…No new findings, just a convenient text for article headlines, but with stale content.”
