Topic: IMPORTANT! - US Senate Bill S.1241 to Criminalize Concealed Ownership of Bitcoin (Read 968 times)

That is just their way of criminalizing holding bitcoin without actually doing that, as you say you can hold cash or even gold without having to report it but when it comes to bitcoin they want to know exactly how much you are holding

https://cryptostreet.co/man-from-michigan-to-serve-1-year-in-prison-for-trading-bitcoins/

According to tax laws in the US, cryptocurrencies are assets. Selling them or trading them at a profit requires a tax declaration of some kind - capital gains tax (and vice versa to declare a loss). The case above was from a different regulatory body called FinCen which regulates financial transactions. A lot of people in the space are already on the wrong side of the law at the moment but you cant really blame them for it.

I agree that crypto should not be used for evading taxes as I am a firm believer that everyone needs to pay their fair share of tax. However, more regulations in the space can be bad for growth --- as I believe in a free market, the market should self-regulate the good from the bad.

What does "Concealed ownership of Bitcoin" even mean? That doesn't even make sense. Like, it is perfectly legal to own cash and hold it in your house so why not be able to own Bitcoin and hold it without reporting to someone? That is abdsolutely  brutal and authorotarian. People whould not worry about just keeping their Bitcoin to themselves and not reporting everything to the government.

Can you evaluate a bit what you mean? In what jurisdications are people going to jail because they are trading crypto for fiat? Or do you mean by this, that they trade assets for cash to evade taxation somehow? If so, then I also think that this should be punished. Crypto cant be a law free heaven for all people that want to evade taxation, if it was, it could never grow to mainstream adoption, and this is what we all want to happen I suppose, so we need to make arrangements with the governments, thats for sure.

From the wording it doesnt seem like it only applies to Bitcoins but to all cryptocurrencies. This is already a problem at the moment because people are already going to jail for trading assets with cash.

Instead of banning it, they should have had use it to their advantage like how Japan did when they legalized bitcoin. They will probably use coins with more anonymity like you said. Some might even consider moving into another country if they want to continue to use btc. I think this move they have made is a wrong move, they will surely suffer losses in the future if btc were to become mainstream. The most possible effect when it happens is that they would be left behind in case usage of fiat is seized. It might not happen soon though.

This is something I think as well, governments have two routes, they either accept cryptocurrencies and try to integrate them to the formal economy and make their best to not pursue crypto users, or they can take the criminal route and think that everyone that holds bitcoin is a criminal, if they follow the latter that is only going to harden the position of many and are going to use coins that are more difficult to trace.

This is something I think as well, governments have two routes, they either accept cryptocurrencies and try to integrate them to the formal economy and make their best to not pursue crypto users, or they can take the criminal route and think that everyone that holds bitcoin is a criminal, if they follow the latter that is only going to harden the position of many and are going to use coins that are more difficult to trace.

It's not going to do anything. The only thing is people will look more to use the anonymous altcoins and so good luck to them with that. What will they do then? Oh wait; it may be a good news since the anon coins value will rise at a good level. Good luck to them trying to watch people using anon coins.

They are focusing their resources on the wrong side...literally...

On November 28, 2017, the US Senate, Committee of the Judiciary held a hearing regarding bill S.1241: Modernizing AML Laws to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. Despite little attention being given to digital currencies during the hearing, bill S.1241 itself would amend the definition of ‘financial institution’ in the United States Code to include digital currencies and digital exchanges. This could have alarming consequences for users of cryptocurrencies both in the US and abroad.

Bill S.1241 would amend the definition of ‘financial institution,’ in Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, to include “an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of prepaid access devices, digital currency, or any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency.” Currently, the definition of ‘financial institution’ includes banks, trust companies, credit unions, currency exchanges, etc.

In her introduction, Mrs. Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, said (31:35), “The bill criminalizes intentionally concealing ownership or control of a bank account.” Although, during the hearing, no further clarifications were given as to the effects this would have on the cryptocurrency community, based on the amended definition of ‘financial institution’, it seems clear enough that the bill would “criminalize [those] intentionally concealing ownership or control of a [digital currency or digital exchange] account.” Wow. Let this sink in for a minute…

The US senate is proposing a bill to make criminals out of anyone intentionally concealing ownership or control of a digital currency or digital exchange account. What’s more, according to the hearing’s prolonged discussion of US law enforcement’s handling of foreign banks and financial institutions, this bill is certain to have far-reaching effects on not only US citizens but the global community as a whole.

If the above statement describes you, it is strongly recommended that you watch the hearing with this new definition of ‘financial institution’ in mind. If you’ve already watched the hearing, watch it again, but this time replace all mentions of ‘banks and financial institutions’ with ‘digital currencies and digital exchanges.’ The implications are really rather alarming.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Kathryn Haun Rodriguez, a Coinbase Board of Directors Member, made absolutely no mention of digital currencies or digital exchanges in her testimony; nor was she asked any questions pertaining to these topics.

Conversely, in her July 2017 written testimony to the US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services and Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance, she stated that some users of digital currencies use them “to conceal and move illicit proceeds because of the perception that virtual currency is untraceable.”

Also in her prior written testimony, she stated that “the FinTech industry could be a very helpful partner to the government in addressing national security concerns;” that “investigators like digital footprints and that is exactly what digital currencies provide;” and that “of course, we can only follow the money to an individual or group if they used a Regulated exchange, one that follows basic AML/KYC laws.”

Contrary to the bill itself, the hearing was noticeably lacking in references to cryptocurrencies; although there was some limited mention of such.
Ms. Klobuchar (2:16:58):


Mr. John A. Cassara (2:17:15):


Due to the probable negative implications for the global cryptocurrency community, hopefully the interpretation of bill S.1241 in this article is proven incorrect; however, at this point, it seems fairly clear (at least to me, the author) that this is the intent behind the bill. If this is indeed the case, it will be the most recent attack on a growing list of State-backed attacks against the crypto-community.

Furthermore, from the noticeable lack of references made to digital currencies during the hearing, it would appear this bill is yet another underhanded attempt of the US Government to further erode global freedoms and civil liberties, which markedly began with the introduction of the Patriot Act, shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

As Tone Vayes mentioned, it would have been nice if Andreas Antonopoulos was there to impart some of the wisdom he shared with the Canadian Senate, on October 8, 2014.

Tone Vayes’ summation*: “It’s bad…I think it’s gonna end in a very confrontational way between Bitcoin—even Bitcoin holders and users—and the US Government.”

Jimmy Song’s summation*: “Yeah, the nice thing about laws is they take a long time…”

Indeed it will be “very, very interesting to see what goes forward.” If this bill passes, how many of you future criminals out there are still set on hodling?

https://btcmanager.com/us-senate-bill-s-1241-criminalize-concealed-ownership-bitcoin/