Topic: Filed a request for an administrative ruling with FinCEN this morning. (Read 7385 times)

The miners' money launcher permit is a bunch of stupid garbage. No third party handles the money for the miners.

Thanks for your effort, it is greatly appreciated.  I hope in time you'll share your findings with us.  I'm engaged in a similar endeavor, though I have found through the general help line that quality accurate information seems to be unavailable from Fincen.   It seems to be more lack of training than malicious intent though the jury remains out for the time being.

Scott Emick

You have my applause.  It is a well drafted document and an intelligent request to make.  Hope the response is as prudent.

Updated general guidance can be found here

http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20140130.pdf

Read through this thread again with great interest. Many thanks to DeathAndTaxes for pursuing this.

Would you be willing to post the text of the request for clarification and your recent revision of it?

Hopefully eventually an answer will be produced.

Thank you for this information, DeathAndTaxes. I commend anyone who goes directly to primary sources for information, even if the information one receives is underwhelming.

That's unfortunate. Please do update us if they end up replying. Thanks.

Sounds like the federal bureaucracy all right

Yes, but it was a request for clarification.  What they wanted clarified was clearly articulated in the original so my unsupported belief is that the request was merely a way to reset the clock and allow them to be compliant with their own rules.

While our Constitution says that gold is the only valid money.

yes, bumping this thread. DeathandTaxes, did you get a response?

Did you receive a revised response?

The first bolded section is somewhat out of context.  In the guidance FinCEN has NOT said that the transmission of virtual currency makes one a money transmitter*. The guidance states that exchanging virtual currency for real currency (or another virtual currency) may (in some instances) be classified as money transmission.  It is important to note that money transmission has a specific legal meaning beyond just money and a transfer.  For example a merchant which accepts credit card payments and issues refunds or affiliate payments is transmitting money.  In most cases they aren't a money transmitter.   All commerce involves the transfer of money but the overwhelming majority of commerce doesn't fall under FinCEN definition of a money transmitter.  


Then again FinCEN guidance on virtual currencies is so vague and nonsensical at times it is hard to know if they even know what they are saying or if what they wrote means what they think it means.  Honestly I don't think FinCEN fully understands Bitcoin and decentralized virtual currencies in general.

It was unrelated to this administrative ruling (I filed two others) but FinCEN "guidance" on virtual currencies even contradicts its prior guidance on the exchange of real currencies.  In at least three separate cases FinCEN concluded that a company which offers as a service to its clients the exchange of one real currency for another real currency is not a money transmitter even if it engages in the transmission of money IF that transmission is integral to another business motive, namely the conversion of foreign currencies (FOREX).

So if both the guidance on virtual currencies and the prior administrative rulings on foreign exchange are taken at face value:
The service to exchange one real currency for another real currency ( USD -> EUR or EUR->USD ) = NOT A MONEY TRANSMITTER (in some instances)
The service to exchange one real currency for one virtual currency ( USD -> BTC or BTC->EUR ) = MONEY TRANSMITTER
The service to exchange one virtual currency for another virtual currency ( BTC -> LTC or LTC->BTC ) = MONEY TRANSMITTER

A case can be made that FinCEN ruling is overly broad and capricious.

The first bolded section is interesting.  An intermediary simply means one that acts as a link between two people.  Taken at face value, wouldn't anyone who operates a Bitcoin node be considered an intermediary?

Will do.  They are suppose to respond within 30 days but it took more like 50 on the first response.  The clarification was sent back about 3 weeks ago.  On advice of counsel I decided not to make their response public while it is still openly being reviewed. 

Ty for the update, keep us posted! 

For the purpose of FinCEN regulations gold dealers are not considered money transmitters.  Selling gold bullion for Bitcoins (or dollars) would not be considered a money service business.

I did receive a response but it contained factual errors.  I had a revised clarification drafted and sent back to FinCEN per their procedures.

That's not true. Gold in the appropriate format is considered currency. Normalized ingots, and common bullion gold coins are currency.

What Bernanke says in public has to be taken with skepticism...