Topic: Question: MtGox vs. Retroactivity of law (Read 1694 times)

It is extremly relevant. If not then for example:  why in hell a milk vendor is not required to do AML & KYC and co ? It does exchange $ against something of value inside the US.

Does this apply to gold/silver?

This is what I always suspected. So that seems to imply that Mt. Gox could contest this interpretation. Certainly they have the funds to do so, and I hope they will, as I think the best conclusion would that BTC are not legally currency.

It is an interpretation of the CFR, not a rule in and of itself.  Rules that end up in the CFR must complete a process called "Notice and Comment" before they are promulgated.

I have a question, is the FIN-2013-G001 guideline merely an interpretation of 31 CFR chapter X? Or is that an enforceable "update" of the old regulation?

If it is the first, wouldn't such interpretation be contestable?
If it is the second, wouldn't it be ex post facto?

You don't have to be a money transmitter to exchange currency for non-currency (such as USD for pillows), so if Bitcoin is not seen as money, registration would not be required.

Hi bitsalame.  Speaking very generally, Congress is constitutionally prohibited from passing ex post facto criminal laws.

I'll give one example: Bitsalame is driving to work one day in his car.  He honks his horn at a Carol Damien, a girl he knows on the sidewalk.  The girl waves back with a smile on her face and keeps walking.  Bitsalame doesn't realize it, but he is just outside Blackacre, an estate owned by Arnold Blackheart, a grumpy, wealthy old man who has many friends in the government.  The politician writes down bitsalame's license plate number and, the next year, gets his friends in the government to pass the Carol's Law Act of 2013, which contains a prohibition against the honking of horns in a 1 mile radius of Blackacre.  Carol's Law is retroactive for all horn-honking that occurred within one year prior to its passage.  Blackheart then reports bitsalame to the police for violating Carol's Law.  The police impound bitsalame's car and put bitsalame in jail for five years, which is the punishment for violating Carol's Law.

The retroactive portion of Carol's Law is unconstitutional. Which part of the constitution depends upon whether it is a state or federal government enacting the law.

That is not what happened to Mt. Gox.  The BSA was enacted well before Mt. Gox and Mutum Sigilum ever started money transmitting.

You forgot to add....

"trolls".

Okay, that is the level of debate I want to avoid.
I am asking some level of maturity here please, don't go off the tangent.
And I would really appreciate if high schoolers, paranoids, libertarians and conspirationists, and those whose only legal and economic education seems to be primarily from the Zeitgeist movies just refrain themselves from posting opinions on this particular thread.

I think it was obvious that I meant "legal tender" money, let's not appeal childishly to semantics, I am seriously tired of red herrings.
I simply want to know the actual laws, and see if this is a winnable case.
So please again, lawyers only, thanks.

Besides that, the actual money transmitting was done by Dwolla, not by Mutum Sigillum.
The actual exchange is performed overseas.
I would appreciate comments and insights from actual lawyers, thanks.

If bitcoin is money or not isn't that significant.

They wer exchanging something for USD, and availing this service to people on american soil.

There were no new laws.   What changed was FinCEN's guidance in that for the first time their interpretation of the law is that the exchange between bitcoins to and from cash (or other forms of value) are considered the transmission of money and thus, at a minimum, require registration as an MSB.


So that there's not any confusion, IANAL.

I have a question to the lawyers of this forum:
I am wondering, wouldn't the accusations of MtGox as money transmitter considered a retroactive application of recent FinCEN guidances?
If bitcoins weren't even legally defined as money when MtGox was creating Mutum Sigillum, then by definition it wasn't illegal back then... isn't that right?
As far as I understand, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional so my question is what is the point of DHS's Seizure, do they even have a case?

What am I missing?