What is so interesting when Coinbase is a centralized exchange that operates according to the dictates of those in power and within the bounds of legal declarations? Whether Coinbase has a totally different opinion on matters regarding sanctions does not matter at all when the powers that be are instructing them to ban Russian accounts. At least, Coinbase are not immediately freezing and blocking accounts. Withdrawals are allowed.
what people forget to realise is coinbase is not a pure crypto thing. the whole point of an exchange is a fiat-crypto gateway. people forget the fiat side. they forget to accept the realisation that fiat laws apply to exchanges
ofcourse coinbase is going to comply to fiat regulations.. they handle fiat!
as for the other part of the quote
coinbase cannot by law just seize/confiscate/takeover account funds. at a business level whim/discretion. all they can do is stop offering services(swapping/trades) by only allowing the user to exit the service via withdrawals. (at business level discretion)
though this is kind of tough. after all coinbase is not allowed to process russian wire transfers direct to russian bank accounts.
though withdrawing via a euro/western bank is allowed at the request of the user, and its then the receiving banks problem to handle. where the bank then has to decide if it allows the funds moved to the euro/western bank account to then be moved to something resembling something russian.(if the bank feels the funds are russian related)
coinbase would send a SARS(suspicious activity report) if it suspects a user is russian. but cannot just keep the funds unless a court order demands it. so coinbase has to let the funds release to the owner if there is no court order. (caveat being not via a russian bank account)
in short its never a single process of 'you are under investigation, oops your funds are gone forever sorry, bye' its a multistep process with many caveats/loopholes and stages that need to be gone though legally to either have the funds released to the user at one end of the scale or seized by a government at the other end of the scale
there are 4 main stages
freeze
seize
confiscate
take ownership/surrender
freezing an account is just to stop offering services(trades/swaps) but the service has to offer a close and withdrawal/refund method.
this can be done at the businesses discretion to just want to not be involved with certain customers. so basically(heres your cash, now go, we dont like you)
seizing is by court order. this can be where the court requests the business to hold onto fund while investigations occur or funds to be moved to a authorities custody.
confiscation. this can take years and alot of court/legal process, requires not just proving the person is an outlaw/suspect/criminal. but that the asset in question was used related to a crime
take ownership/surrender
in most cases of civil forfeiture the game is simple. seize and confiscate certain amounts that are not worthy of the owner fighting over. EG border patrol can steal upto $10k knowing that any legal re-claim would cost the owner more then $10k to fight. thus in 99.999% of cases the owner just gives up and surrenders the value to the authority.(forfeit)
the onus if the owner wants his funds back is to prove that the assets were not linked to criminal activity. yep thats right. at the 'seize' stage a court only has to 'suspect' an asset is linked to a crime and does not require undeniable proof, just some little evidence of suspicion, it then becomes the owners mission to try and defend his innocence/prove his innocence of if the specific assets were used in a crime
EG although a russian oligarch has ties to russian military. his bitcoin or yacht may or may not have been used for russian military activities so the bitcoin/yacht is still in legal limbo, if the court has acted on the suspicious activity report
many people think innocent until proven guilty is law.. but its not... technically
EG if you dont turn up to court. does not mean you stay innocent. you literally lose by default, because if the only story being told is of suspicion of crime and that claim is not denied/defended. then its deemed an admission of guilt via lack of denial/defence
