Topic: How wide reaching can the consequences of Chipmixer money laundering be? - page 5. (Read 1464 times)

This is just a speculation FBI and the US justice department's first concern is to put the owner on trial and trace hackers and scammers on the databases they seized, I've seen so many hacks and scams on the internet but there are no decisions that put the advertisers and marketers as accomplishes, they always go for the owners and perpetrators.

The FBI knows how internet marketing is being done and they never put the liability on the third-party advertisement platform there is not even a ruling on this that we can cite.

I am not in Chipmixer campaign but I don't think any member of the forum is aware that the company is promoting money laundering or other illicit business transactions as alleged by the FBI and others. I am sure many participants would have left the campaign if they are aware of these allegations. These members were paid for the legitimate service they rendered to the company, hence there is no legal justification for a request to pay back what that have earned until it is proved that these members are aware or part of these alleged crime. It's really sad to see this happen, let's see how fair and just the investigation will be.

This is bitcointalk forum not Chipmixertalk. Chipmixer was just a service like many others who advertised or advertising on the forum. So let's not make it sounds like Bitcointalk is Chipmixer.

For some reasons if they seize Google then are you asking them to seize the money of everyone who are earning from Google Adsense, Youtube monetization and many others Google service? Okay say they do, good luck with that.

More than 38 million websites worldwide use AdSense, data from 2018. Add four plus years with it. Good luck with that.
Every year, Google pays over $10 billion to its publishers, data from 2018 again. Get all those money.
Source: https://oko.uk/blog/adsense-facts

I am very lazy now to find data for YouTubers.

Fair enough, Google may comply with financial laws but don't you think today or tomorrow, by any chance when the authority will get upset for some reasons and accuse Google for privacy violation? Google even knows what key you are typing when you are using any of their application. Type a word in compose email, don't do anything else, take off your hand from the keyboard. Open the email from another device, check your draft. They are taking everything from you. With them you have no privacy. My privacy worth more than any money related things. So it's bigger crime. How long they will continue like this. Today, tomorrow, a few years from now. Then someday the eyes of authorities will open. They will shut down Google. It's what they do. Aren't they trying it with Facebook already?

Anyway, you may not aware (you should be) posting others real image, data of birth, address, phone number or even email address is prohibited. Only you can post such information on the investigation board. It does not matter if the information are even everywhere on the web. You can not post it here. So, either move it to investigation board or remove it. I will be reporting the topic after the post. If I am not wrong then, for such careless posts, you may get banned too.

I'm not convinced this will be the case, for the exact reason TryNinja explained:


There's also a difference between knowingly advertising a service that's been deemed illegal, and unknowingly, at least as far as I understand. There's an argument for everyone still wearing the signature to now remove it for this reason, but at the same time the signature is no longer advertising an "illegal service" - because the website is no longer operational. So is kind of irrelevant either way imo.

---

More relevant though imo, a particularly strange part of the court documents highlights how far the reach of warrants to different services extended (or records provided) by the likes of; Google, Yahoo, Protonmail, Paypal, Binance, Dropbox, Apple, LinkedIn,, Twitter, Reddit, Hetzner, DigitalOcean... basically everyone and anything to do with the inveestigation, but bitcointalk wasn't referenced as included?

At least it's not referenced that bitcointalk provided information or received a warrant. I understand when referencing the "ChipMixer persona" - as it's reasonable to assume ChipMixer profiles would represent the ChipMixer service based on public posts - but when in reference to "hotpassion" that is accused of being the suspect's alt, there was apparently no information provided or warrant used? Would they not request information in order to double check IP addresses further, with hotpassion and/or ChipMixer profile? Maybe they did and the IP's didn't match their narrative so weren't used as evidence? Just a theory at least.

This is one part of the investigation I can't get my head around. Either bitcointalk was an exception to the rule, and was one of the few (or only) websites that didn't didn't provide records or receive a warrant, or otherwise they didn't use evidence of it (ie reference it) as it wasn't useful/accurate to their investigation. As otherwise worst case scenario there is an ongoing investigation to do with bitcointalk and chipmixer, so they didn't want to use any of the evidence in the documents - as would then have to reference the records/warrant provided - and tip users off. I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist here, but it's super weird imo.

Ideally theymos could clarify whether any US agencies requested information, or if any was provided. Because if he can't, then it'd be an argument for bitcointalk using a canary in future.

The authorities go after the big ones, not the little ones. Furthermore, the advertisers have not committed any illegality or done anything wrong.

Users who participated in the campaign do not have any responsibility for how the company's business is done.

TryNinja gave the example of Google, but the same happens with newspapers, television, radio. They advertise many products and services, which later become mean. They just did what they were paid, within the law, everything else is beyond them.

Therefore, this is a concern that no one here should have.

I'm already on a list. So I'm not scared of anyone.

---

Do you think, we would advertise a service that is only used by criminals and money launderers? I mean, that is the go-to excuse used by everyone.

Chipmixer distributed about ~300 BTC and then some (since the $300 cap was introduced) via signature campaigns during its operation, which is a small fraction of the "$3 billion money laundering" the reports like to talk about. It had an average value of (you guessed it) $300 * 55 * 383 weeks = about $6.3 million dollars at the time each of the payments were made, or $100K for each person.

The actual total is much less than that since the campaign had a few hundred users over the past 6 years and most people did not get the maximum $300 p/w (it was more like $150 on average). So the average person who stays in the campaign makes just $7,800 a year. This is a far cry from even the seized 1,909BTC. In fact it's not even 1BTC so it makes no sense for the feds to bother with such a small (to them) sum.

The other thing is how are you going to extort all these people (such as me) to pay up? Please don't tell me they will hire Lauda to do that they can't do anything, because they can't serve 300+ users all living in 50+ jurisdictions, and good luck serving users who have vanished such as figmentofmyass and yogg.  

We advertised a service that was good for the people who wanted to protect their privacy. We, like other sane people, do not support and strongly condemn immoral uses of mixers.

You should watch "Coded Bias" on Netflix. It's about AI, but you can still get Big Brother ideas out of it.

They should first go after Google for receiving money for scam advertising (which happens on a large scale, every single day).

Eh... seems like a waste of time. Not everyone is from the US, and I don't think mixers by themselves are illegal.

The paper on ChipMixer by the DoJ implies that their crimes were:

1. money laundering;
2. operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business;
3. identity theft.

Would CM be hunted if they specifically analyzed the coins received before mixing them? Like, imagine them contacting Chain analysis and asking if the coins a user sent came from a DNM, and if so, prompting the user for his KYC documents... (crime 1)

Would they be hunted if they disallowed US customers and enforced that by also taking KYC documents (thus not being an "unlicensed money-transmitting business" in the US?) (crime 2)

And last, if ChipMixer didn't register his PayPal accounts with bought/stolen documents? (crime 3)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1574581/download

I believe some mixer owners will get scared, and try to review their privacy level.

But even though one or two mixers might shut down for fear, most will continue to operate normally. Most will take advantage of this situation to capture more users.

I think as long as a mixer stays small, not too big like the ChipMixer, it should be able to operate without significant problems.

And for that to happen, we as users also have some responsibility. For being more diversified in using mixers, and avoiding always using the same one. If we use several different mixers, it is less likely that one mixer will get too big, and at the same time, we run less risk if any mixers are closed by the authorities.

EDITED: Chipmixer has been seized by the FBI and a warrant for arrest issued for the owner/operator.

I have obfuscated the real name of the owner/operator of the Chipmixer website by replacing what appears on the FBI website with XXX instead. The original images of the FBI website and most of the original OP here will be moved to the Investigations board.

The FBI website states this about him:

Remarks:
XXX has basic training in cryptographic engineering and previously worked in decrypting communications and cyber reconnaissance. In 2016, XXX earned a PhD in electronic engineering in Taiwan.

Caution:
XXX is wanted for his alleged direct involvement in stealing identities and engaging in money laundering activity in furtherance of obfuscating and facilitating the functionality of the ChipMixer service.  Through this conduct, XXX has allegedly facilitated the laundering of approximately $3 billion USD worth of Bitcoin.  A large portion of the funds are directly associated with the victimization of people worldwide through ransomware attacks, cryptocurrency heists, the purchase of illicit drugs, the distribution and production of child sexual abuse material, and other crimes.

On March 14, 2023, XXX was charged with Money Laundering, Operating an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business, and Identity Theft in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a federal warrant was issued for his arrest.


-----------


What signal does this international operation to seize Chipmixer send out to other mixers? I am no expert but as far as I can see, in the end, they all will be marked by various international agencies for eventual seizing and the arrest and trial of their owners and employees.

According to news outlets, German authorities seized servers and crypto worth $46 million. US authorities have accused Chipmixer of laundering over $3 billion since 2017. If international authorities will try to seize all funds related to Chipmixer as they are deemed to be illicit, then it is possible that an attempt could be made by authorities to retrieve all the funds that have been paid out as signature campaign fees as they have effectively promoted/advertised the service.

This could end up being very messy for a lot of members in the forum that participated in their signature campaigns if the FBI and US justice department decide to force forum members to repay all the money they received from Chipmixer as signature campaign income.

How do those that participated in the Chipmixer signature campaign feel about this? Do you think you will be asked to repay all the money you received for promoting Chipmixer since the FBI and other international agencies have attributed them to money laundering?