US Treasury confirms Bitcoin miners and investors won't be regulated

[CryptoCurrencyInc.com]

US Treasury confirms Bitcoin miners and investors won't be regulated

Bitcoin miners and investors will not be regulated by the US Treasury. The clarification came in a pair of rulings yesterday from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury Department, which said that people who mine virtual currencies for personal use and businesses that buy and sell virtual currencies purely as an investment will not be considered money transmitters, exempting them from requirements to register with the government and comply with certain money-laundering regulations that it appeared may have applied to them.

"Exchanges still face money-laundering regulations"

FinCEN's ruling was initially published late last month by Atlantic City Bitcoin, the company that the ruling was originally handed to. However, FinCEN rulings that have not been officially published by the bureau cannot always be used as precedent. With FinCEN's publication of the ruling today, it makes the decision widely applicable.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/5364406/bitcoin-miners-investors-not-regulated-fincen-ruling

[Spendulus]

US Treasury confirms Bitcoin miners and investors won't be regulated

Bitcoin miners and investors will not be regulated by the US Treasury. The clarification came in a pair of rulings yesterday from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury Department, which said that people who mine virtual currencies for personal use and businesses that buy and sell virtual currencies purely as an investment will not be considered money transmitters, exempting them from requirements to register with the government and comply with certain money-laundering regulations that it appeared may have applied to them.

"Exchanges still face money-laundering regulations"

FinCEN's ruling was initially published late last month by Atlantic City Bitcoin, the company that the ruling was originally handed to. However, FinCEN rulings that have not been officially published by the bureau cannot always be used as precedent. With FinCEN's publication of the ruling today, it makes the decision widely applicable.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/5364406/bitcoin-miners-investors-not-regulated-fincen-ruling

What?  Moments of sanity in an ocean of gibbering baboons?

[mgburks77]

So what changes can be expected because of this ruling, practically speaking?

[Sonny]

This is great news. 

Definitely a good news

[Wilikon]

Unless hard coded into law they can change their mind at any time... Think places that legally sell pots and get raided by the Feds.

[TECSHARE]

Unless hard coded into law they can change their mind at any time... Think places that legally sell pots and get raided by the Feds.

Also those poor pan salesmen....

[Spendulus]

Unless hard coded into law they can change their mind at any time... Think places that legally sell pots and get raided by the Feds.

Not exactly true for two reasons.

(A) we ARE in a time of active baldfaced selective law enforcement by Holder et al.
(B) they can't change the administrative ruling RETROACTIVE.   Best(worst) they could do would be to overlook the public notice and time for responses.
(C) An effort to run the federal forces into a state's jurisdiction would be very interesting, to say the least.

RE (C), it used to be that the FED would generate a model statute, then the states would all adopt it perhaps with minor changes.  That was done with marihuana.  That was how states enforced virtually the identical law promulgated by the fed.  Now the state goes in a different direction on the subject, you think the FED is going to assert that it's law trumps the state?  In a matter where the US AJ already is engaging in selective enforcement?

That'd definitely be interesting.  Moreover, I know the country sheriffs would stand on the side of state law.  That is what they are bound to protect.

[Wilikon]

"We are in a time of active baldfaced selective law enforcement by Holder et al."

+ Obamacare is selectively delayed by the WH, etc... Incertitude is what this Gov. is about, on all levels. Bitcoin miners should operate their business as if they could be audited by the IRS at anytime. This Gov. has proven on the National and International venues not to be a trusted partner. Eyes wide open Y'all!

[Spendulus]

"We are in a time of active baldfaced selective law enforcement by Holder et al."

+ Obamacare is selectively delayed by the WH, etc... Incertitude is what this Gov. is about, on all levels. Bitcoin miners should operate their business as if they could be audited by the IRS at anytime. This Gov. has proven on the National and International venues not to be a trusted partner. Eyes wide open Y'all!

I'm okay with that statement as bolded above.  Mainly, all business entities should do exactly that. 

I have been audited many times, and found it to usually be a fair process.  The last time was a politically motivated harassment thing in 2010, for which they found $0 owed, but nit picked endlessly.

So be prepared for audits, and triple your contributions to anti Obama/Holder/gangster candidates at all levels.

[Carlton Banks]

arstechnica.com headline for this was comedy gold.

"Feds: If you mine or trade bitcoin for yourself, that's totally cool"

As if FINCen are your frat-boy best buddy. Yeah.

[Nik1ab]

You are that naive to believe this?

[BCB]

This is the official ruling.
http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R001.pdf


Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Ruling

FIN-2014-R001

Issued: January 30, 2014

Subject: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Virtual Currency Mining Operations

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter of June 1, 2013, seeking an administrative ruling from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) on behalf of [the Company], about [the Company]’s possible status as a money services business (“MSB”) under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). Specifically, you ask whether certain ways of disposing of the Bitcoins mined by [the Company] would make [the Company] a money transmitter under the BSA.

You state that [the Company] mines Bitcoins. You further state that the Bitcoins that [the Company] has mined have not yet been used or transferred, but that [the Company] may decide to use this virtual currency to purchase goods or services, convert the virtual currency into currency of legal tender and use the currency to purchase goods and services, or transfer the virtual currency to the owner of the company. You ask in your letter whether any of these transactions would make [the Company] a money transmitter under the BSA.

On July 21, 2011, FinCEN published a Final Rule amending definitions and other regulations relating to MSBs (the “Rule”).1 The amended regulations define an MSB as “a person wherever located doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized business concern, wholly or in substantial part within the United States, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(6) of this section. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States.”2

BSA regulations, as amended, define the term “money transmitter” to include a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term “money transmission services” means the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.3 The regulations also stipulate that whether a person is a money transmitter is a matter of facts and circumstances, and identifies circumstances under which a person’s activities would not make such person a money transmitter.4

On March 18, 2013, FinCEN issued guidance on the application of FinCEN’s regulations to transactions in virtual currencies (the “guidance”).5 FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as “real” currency) as “the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.”6 In contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. The guidance addresses “convertible” virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.

For purposes of the guidance, FinCEN refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms “exchanger,” “administrator,” and “user.” An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services on the user’s own behalf.

The guidance makes clear that an administrator or exchanger of convertible virtual currencies that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency in exchange for currency of legal tender or another convertible virtual currency for any reason (including when intermediating between a user and a seller of goods or services the user is purchasing on the user’s behalf) is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.7 The guidance also makes clear that “a user who obtains convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods or services is not an MSB under FinCEN's regulations.” FinCEN understands your letter to amount to a request to elaborate on this last statement in the specific context of a user that obtains the convertible virtual currency Bitcoin by mining.

How a user obtains a virtual currency may be described using any number of other terms, such as “earning,” “harvesting,” “mining,” “creating,” “auto-generating,” “manufacturing,” or “purchasing,” depending on the details of the specific virtual currency model involved. The label applied to a particular process of obtaining a virtual currency is not material to the legal characterization under the BSA of the process or of the person engaging in the process to send that virtual currency or its equivalent value to any other person or place. What is material to the conclusion that a person is not an MSB is not the mechanism by which a person obtains the convertible virtual currency, but what the person uses the convertible virtual currency for, and for whose benefit.

FinCEN understands that Bitcoin mining imposes no obligations on a Bitcoin user to send mined Bitcoin to any other person or place for the benefit of another. Instead, the user is free to use the mined virtual currency or its equivalent for the user’s own purposes, such as to purchase real or virtual goods and services for the user’s own use. To the extent that a user mines Bitcoin and uses the Bitcoin solely for the user’s own purposes and not for the benefit of another, the user is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, because these activities involve neither “acceptance” nor “transmission” of the convertible virtual currency and are not the transmission of funds within the meaning of the Rule. This is the case whether the user mining and using the Bitcoin is an individual or a corporation, and whether the user is purchasing goods or services for the user’s own use, paying debts previously incurred in the ordinary course of business, or (in the case of a corporate user) making distributions to shareholders. Activities that, in and of themselves, do not constitute accepting and transmitting currency, funds or the value of funds, are activities that do not fit within the definition of “money transmission services” and therefore are not subject to FinCEN’s registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations for MSBs.8

From time to time, as your letter has indicated, it may be necessary for a user to convert Bitcoin that it has mined into a real currency or another convertible virtual currency, either because the seller of the goods or services the user wishes to purchase will not accept Bitcoin, or because the user wishes to diversify currency holdings in anticipation of future needs or for the user’s own investment purposes. In undertaking such a conversion transaction, the user is not acting as an exchanger, notwithstanding the fact that the user is accepting a real currency or another convertible virtual currency and transmitting Bitcoin, so long as the user is undertaking the transaction solely for the user’s own purposes and not as a business service performed for the benefit of another. A user’s conversion of Bitcoin into a real currency or another convertible virtual currency, therefore, does not in and of itself make the user a money transmitter.9

FinCEN therefore concludes that, under the facts you have provided, [the Company] would be a user of Bitcoin, and not an MSB, to the extent that it uses Bitcoin it has mined: (a) to pay for the purchase of goods or services, pay debts it has previously incurred (including debts to its owner(s)), or make distributions to owners; or (b) to purchase real currency or another convertible virtual currency, so long as the real currency or other convertible virtual currency is used solely in order to make payments (as set forth above) or for [the Company]’s own investment purposes. Any transfers to third parties at the behest of sellers, creditors, owners, or counterparties involved in these transactions should be closely scrutinized, as they may constitute money transmission. (See footnotes 8 and 9 above.) And of course, should [the Company] engage in any other activity constituting acceptance and transmission of either currency of legal tender or virtual currency, it may be engaged in money transmission activities that would be subject to the requirements of the BSA.

This ruling is provided in accordance with the procedures set forth at 31 CFR Part1010 Subpart G. In arriving at the conclusions in this administrative ruling, we have relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the representations you made in your communications with us. Nothing precludes FinCEN from arriving at a different conclusion or from taking other action should circumstances change or should any of the information you have provided prove inaccurate or incomplete. We reserve the right, after redacting your name and address, and similar identifying information for your clients, to publish this letter as guidance to financial institutions in accordance with our regulations.10 You have fourteen days from the date of this letter to identify any other information you believe should be redacted and the legal basis for redaction.

If you have questions about this ruling, please contact FinCEN's regulatory helpline at (703) 905-3591.

    Sincerely,

//signed//

Jamal El-Hindi
Associate Director
Policy Division
1  Bank Secrecy Act Regulations – Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Money Services Businesses, 76 FR 43585 (July 21, 2011).
2  31 CFR § 1010.100(ff).
3  31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) and (B).
4  31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii).
5  FIN-2013-G001, “Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies,” March 18, 2013.
6  31 CFR § 1010.100(m).
7  The definition of “money transmitter” in FinCEN's regulations defines six sets of circumstances – variously referred to as limitations or exemptions – under which a person is not a money transmitter, despite accepting and transmitting currency, funds, or value that substitutes for currency. 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(A)-(F).
8  However, a user wishing to purchase goods or services with Bitcoin it has mined, which pays the Bitcoin to a third party at the direction of a seller or creditor, may be engaged in money transmission. A number of older FinCEN administrative rulings, although not directly on point because they interpret an older version of the regulatory definition of MSBs, discuss situations involving persons that would have been exempted from MSB status, but for their payments to third parties not involved in the original transaction. See FIN-2008-R004 (Whether a Foreign Exchange Consultant is a Currency Dealer or Exchanger or Money Transmitter - 05/09/2008); FIN-2008-R003 (Whether a Person That is Engaged in the Business of Foreign Exchange Risk Management is a Currency Dealer or Exchanger or Money Transmitter - 05/09/2008); FIN-2008-R002 (Whether a Foreign Exchange Dealer is a Currency Dealer or Exchanger or Money Transmitter - 05/09/2008).
9  As noted in footnote 8 above, however, a user engaging in such a transaction, which pays the Bitcoin to a third party at the direction of the counterparty, may be engaged in money transmission.
10  31 CFR §§ 1010.711-717.

[Denni]

Great news! This is definitely a correct way for governments to go.
First Russian CB backs Bitcoin, now this - all the way fairies and unicorns for BTC

[jonanon]

One small step in the right direction 1000 more to go 

[Bit_Happy]

Best news I've seen today 

[BitWinner]

I didn't see this until today, but that's awesome news!

For once there's a bit of common sense at a higher level.

[BCB]

For once there's a bit of common sense at a higher level.

More like education. 

A community member reached out to FinCEN and explained how he was using the technology.  They responded with a new ruling.
http://cointext.com/fincen-issues-bitcoin-friendly-ruling-for-miners/

The community has to do a better job of educating the public, the legislators and the regulators instead of wasting mush of their time bashing them.

just my 2c.

[Spendulus]

The community has to do a better job of educating the public, the legislators and the regulators instead of wasting mush of their time bashing them.

just my 2c.

The community has to do a better job of educating the public, the legislators and the regulators while simultaneously improving it's bashing of legislators, banksters, regulators and all other worthy and notable bashables.

[BCB]

The community has to do a better job of educating the public, the legislators and the regulators instead of wasting mush of their time bashing them.

just my 2c.

The community has to do a better job of educating the public, the legislators and the regulators while simultaneously improving it's bashing of legislators, banksters, regulators and all other worthy and notable bashables.

That also works.  But EDUCATION is KEY.