Topic: Someone on reddit says foundation members can face jail time (Read 1265 times)
Foundation members should call Snowden and organize a party somewhere out of the USA tentacles.
mtgox, bitpay, coinlab, bitinstant = money transmitter companies = bitcoin foundation
very true and from what i can see only the business "bitinstant" has anything close to all the licences.. so i do hope who ever converted the bitcoins to fiat to pay for the convention hall done so through bitinstant
mtgox, bitpay, coinlab, bitinstant = money transmitter companies = bitcoin foundation
Well if the author is Aaron Greenspan he is the CEO of a fiat payment processing company called Think Computing so at the very least his view may not be unbiased.
Also the bolded part is somewhat ambiguous. Will someone, somewhere, at sometime potentially go to jail over some crime related to an interaction between fiat banking world and Bitcoin? Probably. If he means specifically someone from the foundation will go to jail as a result of this C&D? Well his company filed a lawsuit against CA over money transmitter laws being Unconstitutional, a lawsuit which as far as public records show has gone nowhere fast in two years. So while he may honestly think someone "may go to jail" it isn't all that uncertain how accurate his prediction will be.
Also the bolded part is somewhat ambiguous. Will someone, somewhere, at sometime potentially go to jail over some crime related to an interaction between fiat banking world and Bitcoin? Probably. If he means specifically someone from the foundation will go to jail as a result of this C&D? Well his company filed a lawsuit against CA over money transmitter laws being Unconstitutional, a lawsuit which as far as public records show has gone nowhere fast in two years. So while he may honestly think someone "may go to jail" it isn't all that uncertain how accurate his prediction will be.
Quote
From Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5927892):
Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored.
Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them other than what I've read) isn't strictly speaking a money transmitter. Yes, the California Department of Financial Institutions--which will cease to exist in 7 days when it gets merged into the California Department of Corporations--is totally ignorant of Bitcoin. But they know the law pretty well. Especially the one that they wrote. (See the name Robert Venchiarutti on the letter? He's really the one behind it. The DFI lawyers just do what they're told. They don't even like the law. Venchiarutti actually wrote it, with the help of TMSRT's lobbyists.)
That being said, the law to worry about here isn't even the one cited. It is, as I've stated quite frequently, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426). And that law says that you don't have to be a money transmitter to get a letter such as the one received by the Bitcoin Foundation (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2lnhtenm4qb1mydngxac&allow_share=false&show_recommendations=false).
"(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..."
The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does.
There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. It's too bad no one took me seriously when I pointed out that the MTA was going to cause problems two years ago. I've been doing the industry's dirty work ever since. It would have been a lot faster and easier with some help. Now we all have to hope that my constitutional challenge (http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is going to save the day. And it might, but that day may be pretty far off in the future at the current rate.
Meanwhile, everyone should really be freaking out over AB 786 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB786), presently before the California Senate, which makes the MTA worse than it already is by giving Robert Venchiarutti even more power. I've been successful in removing the clause that created a new thought crime, but the rest is still pretty bad--unless you're a payroll company. Amazing what lobbying can do.
If you want to help, click on the "Comments to Author" tab at the link above, register with the State of California, and tell Assemblyman Dickinson that the MTA should be repealed for all of the reasons I outline at https://s.facecash.com/legal/20130225.packetnumbered.pdf: its overly broad scope, inability to sensibly regulate mobile technology, and unconstitutional nature. Money transmission takes place over the internet, which is in the domain of the federal government, not the states. See /ALA v. Pataki/, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1017409488915582.... Also CC: Eileen Newhall [email protected], Mark Farouk [email protected], Senator Jerry Hill [email protected], Marc Hershman [email protected], and BCC me: Aaron Greenspan [email protected]. If you live in California make sure to say where. Be polite.
Reading material:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308013
Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored.
Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them other than what I've read) isn't strictly speaking a money transmitter. Yes, the California Department of Financial Institutions--which will cease to exist in 7 days when it gets merged into the California Department of Corporations--is totally ignorant of Bitcoin. But they know the law pretty well. Especially the one that they wrote. (See the name Robert Venchiarutti on the letter? He's really the one behind it. The DFI lawyers just do what they're told. They don't even like the law. Venchiarutti actually wrote it, with the help of TMSRT's lobbyists.)
That being said, the law to worry about here isn't even the one cited. It is, as I've stated quite frequently, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426). And that law says that you don't have to be a money transmitter to get a letter such as the one received by the Bitcoin Foundation (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2lnhtenm4qb1mydngxac&allow_share=false&show_recommendations=false).
"(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..."
The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does.
There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. It's too bad no one took me seriously when I pointed out that the MTA was going to cause problems two years ago. I've been doing the industry's dirty work ever since. It would have been a lot faster and easier with some help. Now we all have to hope that my constitutional challenge (http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is going to save the day. And it might, but that day may be pretty far off in the future at the current rate.
Meanwhile, everyone should really be freaking out over AB 786 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB786), presently before the California Senate, which makes the MTA worse than it already is by giving Robert Venchiarutti even more power. I've been successful in removing the clause that created a new thought crime, but the rest is still pretty bad--unless you're a payroll company. Amazing what lobbying can do.
If you want to help, click on the "Comments to Author" tab at the link above, register with the State of California, and tell Assemblyman Dickinson that the MTA should be repealed for all of the reasons I outline at https://s.facecash.com/legal/20130225.packetnumbered.pdf: its overly broad scope, inability to sensibly regulate mobile technology, and unconstitutional nature. Money transmission takes place over the internet, which is in the domain of the federal government, not the states. See /ALA v. Pataki/, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1017409488915582.... Also CC: Eileen Newhall [email protected], Mark Farouk [email protected], Senator Jerry Hill [email protected], Marc Hershman [email protected], and BCC me: Aaron Greenspan [email protected]. If you live in California make sure to say where. Be polite.
Reading material:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308013
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1gwuql/bitcoin_foundation_gets_cease_an_desist_order_for/
Is this for real or FUD?
Jump to: