Topic: Unlicensed Exchangers - page 9. (Read 7284 times)
...
...You should'a sold your pro lawyerin' to that pair of financial moguls, maybe they wouldn't "have plead guilty to running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange" & pushin' Xanax
It may even be possible they they were actually drug dealers, who were just using bitcoin for payments,
and thus the government tacked on "unlicensed exchange" as well. I would need to see the complaint to
know what the case is actually about.
But ultimately, they are guilty of being an unlicensed money transmitter if their state defines them as that.
My only argument throughout this thread is that not all jurisdictions are the same. Unlike some people think.
In theory, if these two people sold btc within a friendly state, they would be free men right now.
Quote
Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others
what is many others?is coinbase include on your list?honestly i dont use all that exchange mentioned by you,i just use my trusted exchange and wallet,coinbase.
Why not? It depends on the country where your at if it is legal or not. Just do not hold your money there.
Quote
Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others
what is many others?is coinbase include on your list?honestly i dont use all that exchange mentioned by you,i just use my trusted exchange and wallet,coinbase. Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others? All of them are out law and they can be closed anytime and your money lost...
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years).
...
Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids.
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
Lol, so that is how you got your "$10k in undeclared cash over 3 years'?
Let me help you out a bit with your interweb lawyerin'.
They pleaded guilty to running an unlicensed exchange. As an exchange, they're obligated to report such transactions. They didn't, so got nailed for that too. That's why the article says "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Ya brah, if the government can only articulate that they didn't declare cash in excess of $10k, then they are light weights.
Normally the government will provide an estimate of how much in cash they brought in for 3 years.
It is possible, that in the filed complaint, there are actual cash estimated for the 3 years.
The fact that the article doesn't say what those numbers are, make me think the government doesn't know,
so they through that count in for good measure. Bro-tatoer.
You should'a sold your pro lawyerin' to that pair of financial moguls, maybe they wouldn't "have plead guilty to running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange" & pushin' Xanax
Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others? All of them are out law and they can be closed anytime and your money lost...
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years).
...
Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids.
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
Lol, so that is how you got your "$10k in undeclared cash over 3 years'?
Let me help you out a bit with your interweb lawyerin'.
They pleaded guilty to running an unlicensed exchange. As an exchange, they're obligated to report such transactions. They didn't, so got nailed for that too. That's why the article says "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Ya brah, if the government can only articulate that they didn't declare cash in excess of $10k, then they are light weights.
Normally the government will provide an estimate of how much in cash they brought in for 3 years.
It is possible, that in the filed complaint, there are actual cash estimated for the 3 years.
The fact that the article doesn't say what those numbers are, make me think the government doesn't know,
so they through that count in for good measure. Bro-tator.
All the countries have laws regarding to financial transactions and they require a financial license for the Bitcoin exchangers. It doesn't matter if you are in USA or China.
If Bitcoin isn't defined as money in their country, exactly why would they need such a license? Bitcoin is still in the 'grey zone' for a lot of places.if however they are just swapping bitcoin for altcoins(no fiat at all). then and only then do they not need a licence.
then bitcoin for altcoin buy/sells or vice versa also requires a money transmission license.
Quote
Definitions of User, Exchanger, and Administrator
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added)
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added)
So, if they wanted to argue it, they could interpret it to say things like Poloniex or Shapeshift are also money transmitters.
shapeshift does not touch the dollar.. nor is it even based in USA. this american law does not apply to shapeshift.
though poloniex does not touch fiat, it however does 'reside' in USA so they would need some legal clarification.
however. "virtual currencies" as noted in your documents are electronic forms of fiat. the laws around blockchain currencies are still not defined.
these virtual currencies are what paypal, western union use(USD) and so defining if blockchain currencies are in that remit, still is a grey area.
but overall i can easily see poloniex being on a possible US hitlist.
but if you were to try to think that a MSB was just someone that transmitted any type of currency of value (bitcoin included) then every bitcoin user would need a licence.
im sorry but in prison the inmates do not need a MSB licence for trading cigarettes (their currency of value)
im sorry but in a relationship, women do not need a MSB licence for trading sexual favours (their currency) for getting their spouses to do things around the house.
im sorry but businesses do not need a MSB licence for trading fiat for their staffs labour. as time is a thing of value too.
a good lawyer could rip apart the argument of what is a virtual currency, what is a money substitute etc.
remember.. a paypal USD is not the same as a bank note or a dollar metal coin (you cannot pay a court fine using paypal)
Quote
Currency vs. Virtual Currency
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.
1BTC does not act as a substitute for dollar. there is nothing to prove that 1btc is 1 dollar or that bitcoin should be treated as only being used as a substitute for a dollar. (think of it as if bitcoin was a starbucks coffee.. changing value every year and measured in different vale and different international currencies).
bitcoin is a currency, but not money. its an asset currency basically
so its still not clear. however its best to be cautious
All the countries have laws regarding to financial transactions and they require a financial license for the Bitcoin exchangers. It doesn't matter if you are in USA or China.
If Bitcoin isn't defined as money in their country, exactly why would they need such a license? Bitcoin is still in the 'grey zone' for a lot of places.if however they are just swapping bitcoin for altcoins(no fiat at all). then and only then do they not need a licence.
then bitcoin for altcoin buy/sells or vice versa also requires a money transmission license.
Quote
Definitions of User, Exchanger, and Administrator
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added)
This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. (Emphasis Added)
So, if they wanted to argue it, they could interpret it to say things like Poloniex or Shapeshift are also money transmitters.
regulation is bad, because it restrict too much the usage of the exchange, i can bet my ass that with restriction they would earn less on fee, and would have less user using their service
also it is guaranteed that regulation is done only so the government can have its cut from the revenue...the biggest scammer is always the government as usual
also it is guaranteed that regulation is done only so the government can have its cut from the revenue...the biggest scammer is always the government as usual
"regulation" is under the pretense of consumer protection. yet 95% of the time its the business itself that has to investigate the customer and report to regulators, rather than the other way round, meaning the business only has the info the customer provides and requires the business to pay out to credit agencies and other reporting agencies to get a move better overview of the customers. (making regulators near useless 95% of the time)
there are 2 mindsets to have.
1 is that the large licence fee is a barrier to entry for new startup's.. the flipside is do you really want basement dwellers (boiler room corps) to be handling lots of customers FIAT funds without themselves having reserves/insurance to look after said customers funds.
Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others? All of them are out law and they can be closed anytime and your money lost...
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
First of all, the article is about two individuals who are light weights ($10k in undeclared cash over 3 years).
...
Hope you didn't get your $10k from "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Over 10k simply means that they failed to report transactions over $10k, a failure to comply with AML reporting regulations. On top of running an exchange & pushing Xanax like a bunch of high school kids.
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
Lol, so that is how you got your "$10k in undeclared cash over 3 years'?
Let me help you out a bit with your interweb lawyerin'.
They pleaded guilty to running an unlicensed exchange. As an exchange, they're obligated to report such transactions. They didn't, so got nailed for that too. That's why the article says "Further, the Lords allegedly failed to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000."
Why do the people still use unlicensed exchangers like Kraken, Xapo, BTC-e, Okcoin, BTC China, Bitfinex and many others? All of them are out law and they can be closed anytime and your money lost...
This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
did you think bitcoin have licensed?i'm sure we all here knowing about risk,about losing money,about hacked,we all understand about that,and why we still use that exchange?the answer is,because we love to take a risk,bitcoin is full of risk This is only the most recent example but there are so many like: http://www.coindesk.com/men-plead-guilty-running-unlicensed-bitcoin-exchange/
the guidance is for the LAW in cause to understand it better : https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html
Please see footnote 1 of the bottom of your link page:
Quote
1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. (Emphasis Added)
And see:
Quote
12As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body.
yes but all the States from America are following what FINCEN is saying(guidance). do a search for unlicensed Bitcoin money transmitter:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mtgoxs-dwolla-account-seized-1368760437
https://coincenter.org/2015/04/what-is-money-transmission-and-why-does-it-matter/
The laws are very clear. You didn;t answer why Circle got a EU financial license after they financial licenses in all US?
They don't care about money, right?They wanted to throw them away for some useless papers.
NO, they want to make serious business and they want to wake up on their pillow not in a jail
No, each State may, at their discretion, decide to go against FinCEN Guidance,
if they wish to or if their legislators say bitcoin isn't money.
It is up to each state. It is not a universal federal law, yet.
Your circle question is irrelevant. Do you have proof that Circle has licenses in each
of the states that they do business in, within the United States? There is no universal license.
Circle is a bad exchange to use as an example since they would sell out their
mother to the devil if they could get a single cent. They see bitcoin as a whore to slap around.
They are backed and financed by those who wish to regulate and destroy bitcoin.
the guidance is for the LAW in cause to understand it better : https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html
Please see footnote 1 of the bottom of your link page:
Quote
1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. (Emphasis Added)
And see:
Quote
12As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body.
yes but all the States from America are following what FINCEN is saying(guidance). do a search for unlicensed Bitcoin money transmitter:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mtgoxs-dwolla-account-seized-1368760437
https://coincenter.org/2015/04/what-is-money-transmission-and-why-does-it-matter/
The laws are very clear. You didn;t answer why Circle got a EU financial license after they financial licenses in all US?
They don't care about money, right?They wanted to throw them away for some useless papers.
NO, they want to make serious business and they want to wake up on their pillow not in a jail
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
its a little more complicated then that.
try having more then$10k in a suitcase when you go to an airport or at a border check.
but the whole bank deposit thing is mainly due to the ease of noticing and finding people doing it. not so much a difference of the law. just the survellance capabilities
in short if ur accepting and giving out FIAT as part of a business that swaps fiat for other things. then expect to have to explain yourself
it does not matter if its for legit purposes or not. it does not matter if its a bankers cheque or a bank note or a wire transfer the law is the same.
the only difference is the level of surveillance needed to find out who moved what to where, and for what reason.
so if you dont want the headaches, dont touch fiat.
good point and true.
if the exchangers will not touch fiat then they will have almost no business.
the point is that they do not want to play "fair" and to get the financial license required by the country where they are registered. once licensed, they have to respect strict rules, they cannot disappear overnight. it's so funny. they want to be treated like serious businesses, like shit corporations but when it's about regulations, they run
regulation is bad, because it restrict too much the usage of the exchange, i can bet my ass that with restriction they would earn less on fee, and would have less user using their service
also it is guaranteed that regulation is done only so the government can have its cut from the revenue...the biggest scammer is always the government as usual
If you accept cash in person, AML in does not apply. AML has to do with bank deposits with a single purchase.
its a little more complicated then that.
try having more then$10k in a suitcase when you go to an airport or at a border check.
but the whole bank deposit thing is mainly due to the ease of noticing and finding people doing it. not so much a difference of the law. just the survellance capabilities
in short if ur accepting and giving out FIAT as part of a business that swaps fiat for other things. then expect to have to explain yourself
it does not matter if its for legit purposes or not. it does not matter if its a bankers cheque or a bank note or a wire transfer the law is the same.
the only difference is the level of surveillance needed to find out who moved what to where, and for what reason.
so if you dont want the headaches, dont touch fiat.
good point and true.
if the exchangers will not touch fiat then they will have almost no business.
the point is that they do not want to play "fair" and to get the financial license required by the country where they are registered. once licensed, they have to respect strict rules, they cannot disappear overnight. it's so funny. they want to be treated like serious businesses, like shit corporations but when it's about regulations, they run
it's not about Bitcoin. It's about that an exchanger is doing financial transactions. They are receiving money from customers for doing a FINANCIAL service. You need license for a such thing in all the countries. There is NO grey zone.
I don't think these things work the way you think in a lot of places. For example, for withdrawing money in a country where Bitcoin is in the grey area I don't have to pay any kind of tax.Example: you need a financial license to trade gold even it's virtual gold. Gold is not money...
I need to have a license to trade my FarmVille coins? 
the guidance is for the LAW in cause to understand it better : https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html
Please see footnote 1 of the bottom of your link page:
Quote
1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. (Emphasis Added)
And see:
Quote
12As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body.
So, currently, this is not laws. In fact, they say it is not law and is a reinterpretation of the known laws,
in order to place crypt-currencies within their governance (without legislative approval).
In theory, FinCENs "guidance" can not be used as anything official or definitive in a court of law or before congress.
closed by who? if it's not by their local jurisdiction, they cannot be closed america if you think so, they are out of the law of america
All the countries have laws regarding to financial transactions and they require a financial license for the Bitcoin exchangers. It doesn't matter if you are in USA or China.
this may be not true for crypto currency and probably it's not true by an amount limit, maybe those exchange are moving a low amount of money and they are not require any licence?
also are you sure that in all countries you need a licence for money trasmitting?
Jump to: