You can launder money via real estate
You can launder it in potatoes if you wanted.
Topic: IRS Bitcoin is Property - Money Laundering Allegations no longer valid? (Read 1211 times)
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
April 05, 2014, 05:45:58 AM
You can launder it in potatoes if you wanted.
April 05, 2014, 05:18:01 AM
You can launder money via real estate
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
April 05, 2014, 04:48:11 AM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
Yeah, money laundering is usually always exchanged to something else and back again, hence why it's laundering. You can't just swap cash for cash and the money becomes clean.
April 04, 2014, 10:12:46 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
we will see what govt thinks.
April 04, 2014, 10:10:40 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
The Gov is a monster with many heads.
FINCEN says it's money, so he might still be in big trouble.
April 04, 2014, 10:08:41 PM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
What if the drug dealer used HSBC bank?
its still money laundering.. but the vessel used is "to big to fail" so no one gets arrested
My subtle suggestion is it's not money laundering when nobody gets arrested, just as there is no serious terror threat when you can count the number of terror incidents in a decade on one hand. (note: I'm not suggesting we need more money laundering or terror incidents, rather that we need to rethink our "wars on" these things)
April 04, 2014, 09:51:29 PM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
What if the drug dealer used HSBC bank?
its still money laundering.. but the vessel used is "to big to fail" so no one gets arrested, but as i said previously.. if paintings/gold or anything else was used. then the art auction house would be questioned/part of the laundering investigation aswell as the art taken away as evidence.
April 04, 2014, 07:19:02 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
The big point that must be decided in the law is whether bitcoin is property or currency when it comes to Nemo dat quod non habet, where stolen bitcoin could be reclaimed by the original owner even though it has gone through several bona fide owners, if it is considered property.Could you explain this further? How would people even prove that the ownership belonged to them, besides the coins going through their wallet in the blockchain?
If you obtain coins through a documented transaction, such as an exchange, or from a legitimate seller that has no problem providing a receipt, I'm sure the courts would have no problem with this establishing ownership.
April 04, 2014, 06:48:03 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
The big point that must be decided in the law is whether bitcoin is property or currency when it comes to Nemo dat quod non habet, where stolen bitcoin could be reclaimed by the original owner even though it has gone through several bona fide owners, if it is considered property.Could you explain this further? How would people even prove that the ownership belonged to them, besides the coins going through their wallet in the blockchain?
April 04, 2014, 06:19:15 PM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
What if the drug dealer used HSBC bank?
He gets to party with Obama in a sleek, long limo.
Later, he gets "special favors" in jail.
April 04, 2014, 05:09:44 PM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
What if the drug dealer used HSBC bank?
April 04, 2014, 04:54:14 PM
if a drug dealer traded $1m FIAT for 2 picasso and van gogh paintings. and then they sold those paintings for clean money in a bank account...
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
... its still money laundering. no matter what 'vessel' of value they used
April 02, 2014, 03:00:11 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
IRS rules that it is "property" for tax purposes. It's very narrow in scope. If it had ruled it currency, it wouldn't have been eligible for special lower tax rates on long term capital gains. For the most part, this is a positive news for taxpayers, not so positive news for miners that didn't realize they were speculating in bitcoin after mining and holding and had losses.
A federal judge in Texas ruled it "currency" in respect to AML/money transmitter laws. The law is still semi-fluid on this point, until set in stone by the Supreme Court. Probably a good thing, considering the next point:
The big point that must be decided in the law is whether bitcoin is property or currency when it comes to Nemo dat quod non habet, where stolen bitcoin could be reclaimed by the original owner even though it has gone through several bona fide owners, if it is considered property.
April 02, 2014, 02:15:26 PM
Law doesn't work backwards.
It's still money laundering even if it involves exchanging tainted money for property and vice versa..
It's still money laundering even if it involves exchanging tainted money for property and vice versa..
April 02, 2014, 02:10:44 PM
Now that the IRS has deemed bitcoin to be "property" and not "currency" surely that means that charlie shrem's & Ross Ulbricht's money laundering allegations are no longer valid?
Jump to: