History of United States Anti-Money Laundering Laws

[td services]

I'm not a legal scholar.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm having a public dialogue about US anti - money laundering regulation as it relates to virtual currencies.

You are certainly welcome to outline elements of the BSA that you believe to be unconstitutional.  And until a court proves your point they remain law in the US regardless of what you think and  I for one plan to operate within those laws.

Doug Jackson of e-gold bent over forwards trying to comply and still ended up getting it hard with no grease.

Government employees cannot be relied upon to follow the law. They will change it to whatever suits them and their masters among the elites.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

[1713857304]

1713857304

[1713857304]

1713857304

[1713857304]

1713857304

[1713857304]

1713857304

[1713857304]

1713857304

[1713857304]

1713857304

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm not a legal scholar.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm having a public dialogue about US anti - money laundering regulation as it relates to virtual currencies.

You are certainly welcome to outline elements of the BSA that you believe to be unconstitutional.  And until a court proves your point they remain law in the US regardless of what you think and  I for one plan to operate within those laws.

Doug Jackson of e-gold bent over forwards trying to comply and still ended up getting it hard with no grease.

Government employees cannot be relied upon to follow the law. They will change it to whatever suits them and their masters among the elites.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

There seems to be a common misconception that the rule of law still prevails ... despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

[BCB]

I'm not a legal scholar.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm having a public dialogue about US anti - money laundering regulation as it relates to virtual currencies.

You are certainly welcome to outline elements of the BSA that you believe to be unconstitutional.  And until a court proves your point they remain law in the US regardless of what you think and  I for one plan to operate within those laws.

Doug Jackson of e-gold bent over forwards trying to comply and still ended up getting it hard with no grease.

Government employees cannot be relied upon to follow the law. They will change it to whatever suits them and their masters among the elites.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

TD. If you were actually familiar with the e-gold case and the law you would understand that that Doug Jackson was prosecuted for ignoring existing law just as you are suggesting. At his sentencing the judge actually said that there was nothing illegal about his business. Unfortunately he was not in compliance and he allowed bad actors to use his system.

Actions (or more specifically inaction) have consequences. And in this case the consequences include both civil and criminal penalties.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

It's ok, you can get away with money laundering if you are a big bank.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/?ref=business&_r=0

[Daggett993]

The laws that affect us most are all surprisingly recent.  Wow.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm not a legal scholar.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm having a public dialogue about US anti - money laundering regulation as it relates to virtual currencies.

You are certainly welcome to outline elements of the BSA that you believe to be unconstitutional.  And until a court proves your point they remain law in the US regardless of what you think and  I for one plan to operate within those laws.

Doug Jackson of e-gold bent over forwards trying to comply and still ended up getting it hard with no grease.

Government employees cannot be relied upon to follow the law. They will change it to whatever suits them and their masters among the elites.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

TD. If you were actually familiar with the e-gold case and the law you would understand that that Doug Jackson was prosecuted for ignoring existing law just as you are suggesting. At his sentencing the judge actually said that there was nothing illegal about his business. Unfortunately he was not in compliance and he allowed bad actors to use his system.

Actions (or more specifically inaction) have consequences. And in this case the consequences include both civil and criminal penalties.

You are living in an alternative reality ... I kind of envy your cognitive dissonance because that is the world most of us would like to believe we are living in (in an ignorance is bliss kind of way), but the evidence for selective application of bad laws and the roll out of a facist state are now overwhelming. In the end, wilfully ignoring the new reality will cost you, financially and probably psychologically as well eventually.

[BCB]

Huh??  You should try to understand concepts like cognitive dissonance before you use them in an argument to make baseless uninformed attacks. You are attacking me personally not my argument that there are laws that  exist and regardless of how they are selectively enforced the are still to be obeyed.  You don't like that. Neither do I but the fact remains. Throwing around armchair psychology may make you feel better or more superior but it does not change the fact.

In fact if you really knew what cognitive dissonance was you'd realize your justification that laws you find immoral or unjust don't apply to you is in fact a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

Now to return to to the topic here:  the US and other countries have very clear anti-money laundering laws and regulation and the extent to which any legitimate bitcoin business in the US or serving US Customers understands how to navigate these regulations or work collectively to change or modify those laws as they relate to virtual currency is the extent to which they will be successful.

[tspacepilot]

Thanks for the reading material!

[Carlton Banks]

In fact if you really knew what cognitive dissonance was you'd realize your justification that laws you find immoral or unjust don't apply to you is in fact a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

You're entirely correct to point out that immoral or unjust legislation is in the eye of the beholder. You haven't the faintest clue how to identify cognitive dissonance correctly. Allow me to refute the above quote:

Some people think the ability to stifle the flow of money between criminals is a proportionate and appropriate way to tackle the actual crimes, others don't. The trouble with that is that the United States political/corporate establishment seeks to impose it's subjective view of right and wrong upon every square inch of the planet, and it has been granted no such authority, except by itself. This is the greater crime, as it renders everyone else unable to choose what version of right and wrong they wish to live under. It is nothing more than a dictatorship, to disacknowledge this is cognitive dissonance of a magnitude that would sound like an entire orchestra tipped over the edge of the Grand Canyon.  

[marcus_of_augustus]

Let me put it in a more down home analogy for ya:

... the old house is crumbling down, people are walking through the massive holes smashed in the walls, climbing in through the broken windows ... and here you are screaming, "everybody, please remember to use the doors!".

I think go to Wall St. and pontificate about following the ridiculous financial regulations and laws, the targets are bigger, more 'morally just' and at least they will pretend to care.

[BCB]

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[User705]

This might be coming

• Money Laundering, Cryptocurrency and Financial Crimes Strategy Act (2016)

/thread revive
With government seizing bitcoins now and somewhat acknowledging their status as money regulation seems inevitable but I agree with you that bitcoin protocol is in direct conflict with many existing aml and other laws on the books so other then an outright ban what possible regulation can there be?

[justusranvier]

This might be coming

• Money Laundering, Cryptocurrency and Financial Crimes Strategy Act (2016)

That would be awesome.

Do you know how much we'll get done by 2016 in terms of inventing systems that will make that law impossible to enforce in practise?

[TippingPoint]

This might be coming

• Money Laundering, Cryptocurrency and Financial Crimes Strategy Act (2016)

/thread revive
With government seizing bitcoins now and somewhat acknowledging their status as money regulation seems inevitable but I agree with you that bitcoin protocol is in direct conflict with many existing aml and other laws on the books so other then an outright ban what possible regulation can there be?

I hesitate to give them specifics.  The good news is that they are usually slow and ponderous. 

[User705]

Sure, so the hope here is for adoption to outrun the time it takes for various agencies to crack down?  Aml and kyc laws are illegal per se without mens rea requirements much like drug possession.  Those laws already make lots of bitcoin transactions illegal.  If taken to its logical conclusion since regulating bitcoin is impossible the only other option is an outright ban.  No amount of explaining to regulators will change the fact that an anonymous address A can transfer the equivalent of millions of real fiat to anonymous address B and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

[BCB]

Page 13, Item 21 titled "Silk Road's Bitcoin Based Payment System" in section b. item V. of the sealed complaint of US vs Ross William Ulbricht states:
"Bitcoin are not illegal in and of themselves and have known legitimate uses."
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801130/172773407-ulbricht-criminal-complaint-silk-road.pdf


"... offering virtual currencies must comply with ... regulatory requirements, and if they do so, they have nothing to fear from Treasury. "
JENNIFER SHASKY CALVERY, DIRECTOR , FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK
http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/pdf/20130613.pdf

[User705]

I think you misinterpreted what I said.  Forget for a second the fact that one judge can say one thing and later another can say something else.  What I said was that lots of bitcoin transactions are illegal per se not bitcoin itself is illegal.  If bitcoin is a currency then either it is a cash currency or because of the public blockchain it isn't.  If one feels it's cash then various institution must file reports if transactions exceed a certain size and the participants aren't identified.  Somehow I doubt any such reports are filed or for that matter who's supposed to file them?  Miners?  Pools?  So all the big transactions you see on the blockchain are either money laundering per se or what are they since participants are obscured and that by definition is money laundering.  If it isn't a cash currency then no regulation is needed at all since it's just like writing a check and both partis are known by their bitcoin address.  Bitcoin is kinda like the Native Americans view about land and property vs modern money which was the European view about land and property when they came to America.  These two systems can not coexist peacefully.

[illpoet]

BCB gets a post award for quality.  Thank you sir.   

Yes, quality fore-lock tugging, bowing, scraping and general sycophancy.

I think Lao Tsu would approve of BCB's post.

The Tao of Trolling

[freedomno1]

Moves this up to the top of the page due to recent news etc.

[BCB]

I think you misinterpreted what I said.  Forget for a second the fact that one judge can say one thing and later another can say something else.  What I said was that lots of bitcoin transactions are illegal per se not bitcoin itself is illegal.  If bitcoin is a currency then either it is a cash currency or because of the public blockchain it isn't.  If one feels it's cash then various institution must file reports if transactions exceed a certain size and the participants aren't identified.  Somehow I doubt any such reports are filed or for that matter who's supposed to file them?  Miners?  Pools?  So all the big transactions you see on the blockchain are either money laundering per se or what are they since participants are obscured and that by definition is money laundering.  If it isn't a cash currency then no regulation is needed at all since it's just like writing a check and both partis are known by their bitcoin address.  Bitcoin is kinda like the Native Americans view about land and property vs modern money which was the European view about land and property when they came to America.  These two systems can not coexist peacefully.

True.  There have been few legal precedents set for bitcoin.

"Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an  investment of money."
Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division in SEC V TRENDON T. SHAVERS and BITCOIN SAVINGS AND TRUST
http://ia600904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.23.0.pdf

I hope that further ruling in the Shavers Case in Texas and the pending Silk Road cases in New York and Delaware will give further clairity to bitcoin's legal standing.

Interesting analogy about the Native Americans.  We all know their fate in the US.  It was not until they partnered with corporate america to use the sovereign powers of their domestic dependent nation  status to enter the casino industry that they began to gain any parity.