bitcoin and money laundering

[Erdogan]

All this will now have to be abandoned. Money is money, and crimes will have to be dealth with separately.

I can foresee special crime investigation teams, which have expertise in bitcoin, being set up. 
Already you have crimes involving bitcoin shooting up.

That was probably humoristic, but

If violence have been done, investigate that.
If fraud have been done, investigate that.
If illegal substances has been transacted, investigate that.
If someone has been enslaved (nonsensically/newspeakly called trafficking) then take action on that.

Money moved over the border? Has to be ignored. Can not be outlawed, just as giving someone a piece of cake against a cup of coffee in return, can not be taxed. (It they could, they would).

[leezay]

I'm going to go ahead and get my book written so you guys and dolls can learn how to get around all thiese silly-assed "regulations".

Please do so.

[LostDutchman]

I'm going to go ahead and get my book written so you guys and dolls can learn how to get around all thiese silly-assed "regulations".

Please do so.

I will.

I'm working on it.

[bigwig456]

I'm going to go ahead and get my book written so you guys and dolls can learn how to get around all thiese silly-assed "regulations".

Please do so.

I will.

I'm working on it.

I really would like to know how to get around the government with my bitcoins.

@OROBTC,

You said "there are several companies that advertise on the Internet that they will take your Bitcoin for gold.

Gold is the ONLY thing I have spent BTC on..."

Would you provide me with links to the companies online that take btc for gold, especially the ones you have dealt with? Many thanks to you.

[polynesia]

That was probably humoristic, but

If violence have been done, investigate that.
If fraud have been done, investigate that.
If illegal substances has been transacted, investigate that.
If someone has been enslaved (nonsensically/newspeakly called trafficking) then take action on that.

Money moved over the border? Has to be ignored. Can not be outlawed, just as giving someone a piece of cake against a cup of coffee in return, can not be taxed. (It they could, they would).

Correct.
Although bitcoin may be unrelated to the crime, some one with expertise in bitcoin could help unravel the 'money trail', leading to the criminal.
That is where the special teams could come in.

[DannyElfman]

Getting harder to cash out large sum of bitcoin as all exchanges are now regulated.

Local Bitcoins then?

LBC sellers are technically suppose to comply with AML regulations, although many of them do not do so. You would probably need to sell over several trades if you wanted to cash out a large amount.

LBC users are in no way at all required to comply with AML regs any more than the seller of a used car is required to do so.

I have read news reports that LE has charged LBC sellers with AML violations when they sold to people who we're claiming to be using the bitcoin for illegal purposes

Fine.

Where's the beef?

Show us the links!

And please tell us just how a transaction which might appear to be illegal on it scae compares with a perfectly legal transaction between two ordinary citizens.

oh

It's "were" not "we're".

I have seen the report to. It was in Miami, this guy was charging 30%+ markup on trades to people. An undercover cop told the seller that he was going to use the bitcoin for illegal purposes and he was arrested for violating AML laws. I have also seen on the FinCen website that anyone who transmits any amount of financial instruments must follow AML laws.

Should be wary of buyer paying 30% premium.

It was the seller asking for these kinds of premiums. IMO the seller was targeting people who were trying to use bitcoin for illegal purposes and wanted to stay "under the radar"

IMO whenever you are making this kind of markup in an efficient market, you are almost certainly doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

[OROBTC]

...

@ bigwig456

Here are the below gold for BTC sellers that I know about, I have bought from the first one:

https://www.goldsilverbitcoin.com/  (ask for Justin, see my experience here: http://goo.gl/pJM7U)

https://www.amagimetals.com/  (I have read a few good reviews)

https://agoracommodities.com/

http://www.coinabul.com/  (they MAY have gotten their act together, but one BAD review from a year or two ago)

YMMV!  Do your own diligence!  CALL them too!


* * *

@ LostDutchman

I too would be interested in your book!  Please keep us advised!

[noel57]

The argument here is can bitcoin ever out weigh bank currencies or fiat not to talk of using it for laundering.

[Bitwayup85]

Please speak proper english. Reading this gave me a head ache. Rephrase your words then we'll see from there lol

[ihuntbtc]

Money laundering is a problem with cash too.

[itsAj]

Getting harder to cash out large sum of bitcoin as all exchanges are now regulated.

Local Bitcoins then?

LBC sellers are technically suppose to comply with AML regulations, although many of them do not do so. You would probably need to sell over several trades if you wanted to cash out a large amount.

LBC users are in no way at all required to comply with AML regs any more than the seller of a used car is required to do so.

I have read news reports that LE has charged LBC sellers with AML violations when they sold to people who we're claiming to be using the bitcoin for illegal purposes

Fine.

Where's the beef?

Show us the links!

And please tell us just how a transaction which might appear to be illegal on it scae compares with a perfectly legal transaction between two ordinary citizens.

oh

It's "were" not "we're".

I have seen the report to. It was in Miami, this guy was charging 30%+ markup on trades to people. An undercover cop told the seller that he was going to use the bitcoin for illegal purposes and he was arrested for violating AML laws. I have also seen on the FinCen website that anyone who transmits any amount of financial instruments must follow AML laws.

Should be wary of buyer paying 30% premium.

It was the seller asking for these kinds of premiums. IMO the seller was targeting people who were trying to use bitcoin for illegal purposes and wanted to stay "under the radar"

IMO whenever you are making this kind of markup in an efficient market, you are almost certainly doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

This is more or less true. If you are willing to pay this much of a premium then it is very likely that you are going to ask the other person not to verify your identity. You have a good argument for them not to check your ID because they are making so much money from your trade. 

[botany]

Getting harder to cash out large sum of bitcoin as all exchanges are now regulated.

Local Bitcoins then?

LBC sellers are technically suppose to comply with AML regulations, although many of them do not do so. You would probably need to sell over several trades if you wanted to cash out a large amount.

LBC users are in no way at all required to comply with AML regs any more than the seller of a used car is required to do so.

I have read news reports that LE has charged LBC sellers with AML violations when they sold to people who we're claiming to be using the bitcoin for illegal purposes

Fine.

Where's the beef?

Show us the links!

And please tell us just how a transaction which might appear to be illegal on it scae compares with a perfectly legal transaction between two ordinary citizens.

oh

It's "were" not "we're".

I have seen the report to. It was in Miami, this guy was charging 30%+ markup on trades to people. An undercover cop told the seller that he was going to use the bitcoin for illegal purposes and he was arrested for violating AML laws. I have also seen on the FinCen website that anyone who transmits any amount of financial instruments must follow AML laws.

Should be wary of buyer paying 30% premium.

It was the seller asking for these kinds of premiums. IMO the seller was targeting people who were trying to use bitcoin for illegal purposes and wanted to stay "under the radar"

IMO whenever you are making this kind of markup in an efficient market, you are almost certainly doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

This is more or less true. If you are willing to pay this much of a premium then it is very likely that you are going to ask the other person not to verify your identity. You have a good argument for them not to check your ID because they are making so much money from your trade. 

I doubt if the seller is doing anything illegal here.

[EndlessStory]

Seamlessly bitcoin has more to offer to those launderers than to us the legit users,mainly having no centralized control system help launder money boundlessly around anywhere which many of us has experienced/witnessed.

[waqas]

Money laundering is a problem with cash too.

Yes many Countries with very stick laws unable to stop this and bitcoin is also very good and easy way for this

[itsAj]

Getting harder to cash out large sum of bitcoin as all exchanges are now regulated.

Local Bitcoins then?

LBC sellers are technically suppose to comply with AML regulations, although many of them do not do so. You would probably need to sell over several trades if you wanted to cash out a large amount.

LBC users are in no way at all required to comply with AML regs any more than the seller of a used car is required to do so.

I have read news reports that LE has charged LBC sellers with AML violations when they sold to people who we're claiming to be using the bitcoin for illegal purposes

Fine.

Where's the beef?

Show us the links!

And please tell us just how a transaction which might appear to be illegal on it scae compares with a perfectly legal transaction between two ordinary citizens.

oh

It's "were" not "we're".

I have seen the report to. It was in Miami, this guy was charging 30%+ markup on trades to people. An undercover cop told the seller that he was going to use the bitcoin for illegal purposes and he was arrested for violating AML laws. I have also seen on the FinCen website that anyone who transmits any amount of financial instruments must follow AML laws.

Should be wary of buyer paying 30% premium.

It was the seller asking for these kinds of premiums. IMO the seller was targeting people who were trying to use bitcoin for illegal purposes and wanted to stay "under the radar"

IMO whenever you are making this kind of markup in an efficient market, you are almost certainly doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

This is more or less true. If you are willing to pay this much of a premium then it is very likely that you are going to ask the other person not to verify your identity. You have a good argument for them not to check your ID because they are making so much money from your trade. 

I doubt if the seller is doing anything illegal here.

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

[botany]

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

As long as there is no legal requirement to check the buyer's ID, I guess the seller should be safe.

[wasserman99]

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

As long as there is no legal requirement to check the buyer's ID, I guess the seller should be safe.

In the US if someone sells something like BTC for fiat in any amount they are suppose to verify the other person's identity and report any transactions above a certain threshold and report any kind of suspicious activity they encounter.

[botany]

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

As long as there is no legal requirement to check the buyer's ID, I guess the seller should be safe.

In the US if someone sells something like BTC for fiat in any amount they are suppose to verify the other person's identity and report any transactions above a certain threshold and report any kind of suspicious activity they encounter.

That is strange. It is usually the buyer who has to verify ids (to ensure that there is no tax evasion). But each jurisdiction will have its own rules.

[itsAj]

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

As long as there is no legal requirement to check the buyer's ID, I guess the seller should be safe.

In the US if someone sells something like BTC for fiat in any amount they are suppose to verify the other person's identity and report any transactions above a certain threshold and report any kind of suspicious activity they encounter.

That is strange. It is usually the buyer who has to verify ids (to ensure that there is no tax evasion). But each jurisdiction will have its own rules.

All of the money laundering cases that have involved LBC (AFAIK) have always involved the seller of BTC not verifying the identity of a buyer after being told that the buyer is going to use the BTC for something illegal.

[wasserman99]

The seller would not be doing anything illegal (except not checking the buyer's ID). The buyer would likely be willing to pay for the privacy because they intend to do something illegal with the BTC.

As long as there is no legal requirement to check the buyer's ID, I guess the seller should be safe.

In the US if someone sells something like BTC for fiat in any amount they are suppose to verify the other person's identity and report any transactions above a certain threshold and report any kind of suspicious activity they encounter.

That is strange. It is usually the buyer who has to verify ids (to ensure that there is no tax evasion). But each jurisdiction will have its own rules.

I am pretty sure this is not true. It is generally the responsibility of the person who is "handing out" the fiat to make sure that the person receiving the fiat is doing so legitimately. Tax evasion is generally the responsibility of the tax authority to try to prevent.