U.S. Shuts Liberty Reserve Currency Exchange

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Tuesday, May 28, 2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/05/28/u-s-authorities-close-another-digital-currency-exchange

In conjunction with Costa Rican authorities and Spanish police, U.S. law enforcement participated in a joint operation on Friday to arrest the founder of Liberty Reserve S. A., a private digital currency exchange service based in Costa Rica.

U.S. authorities accused the currency exchange of facilitating $6 billion worth of money laundering, calling it a “bank of choice for the criminal underworld.”

Today, the website domain is resolving again but a notice on the homepage states: “THIS DOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN SEIZED by the United States Global Illicit Financial Team.” Domain names were also seized for asianagold.com, exchangezone.com, moneycentralmarket.com and swiftexchanger.com most likely for their affiliation with Liberty Reserve.

According to the indictment unsealed today, U.S. prosecutors said that the case involved law enforcement agencies in 17 countries and “is believed to be the largest international money laundering prosecution in history.” This latest action follows the 2007 closure of Doug Jackson’s famous e-gold service and this month’s seizure of Mt. Gox’s assets and account facility at U.S.-based Dwolla.

Arthur Budovsky, 39, a former U.S. citizen and naturalized Costa Rican of Ukrainian origin, was arrested in Spain and U.S. officials are likely to seek his extradition. He has been under investigation in Costa Rica since 2011 for suspicion of money laundering and for using various shell companies to operate Liberty Reserve.

On Friday, San José prosecutors raided Budovsky’s home and offices in Escazú and Santa Ana, southwest of San José, and in the northern province of Heredia. Agents from the organized crime unit of the Costa Rican Prosecutor’s Office seized documents, computers, three Rolls Royce and Jaguar automobiles, and a motorcycle. A Russian national with the last name Chukharev was also arrested and the U.S. is seeking his extradition as well.

Costa Rica state prosecutor José Pablo Gonzalez said that Costa Rica’s financial regulator, Financial Institution Superintendency (SUGEF), had refused to issue a license to Liberty Reserve in 2011 due to concerns about its transparency and funding procedures.

Investigators allege that Budovsky’s businesses in Costa Rica were used to launder funds from drug trafficking, identity theft, and pornography websites. The seized digital and physical evidence from the companies will be turned over to U.S. law enforcement in accordance with “international penal assistance.” The involved companies are Silverhand Solutions & Technology S.A. (Santa Ana), Worldwide E-Commerce Business S.A., or WEBSA (Escazú), Grupo Lulu Limitada (Escazú), Triton Group A & A, S.A. (Escazú), and Cyberfuel.com (Santa Ana).

Some Liberty Reserve users are estimating that the company may have held customer funds in excess of $150 million at the time of the seizure. There has been no statement from authorities on the reclamation process.

Since 2002, Liberty Reserve had been operating one of the oldest and most popular payment processors in the world with millions of clients. Vitalik Buterin of Bitcoin Magazine credits the company with being “one of the chief enablers of the Bitcoin economy’s early growth.” Payment methods such as credit cards and ACH transfers are not a great match for the irreversible bitcoin, because those payment methods can be reversed, or charged back. In 2010 and 2011 with the bitcoin exchanges struggling for irreversible inbound payment methods, Liberty Reserve Dollars and Liberty Reserve Euros were proprietary digital units that satisfied the need for payment finality.

Although security researcher Brian Krebs emphasizes the more salacious cyber crime aspects of the case, Liberty Reserve was also utilized by many legal businesses.

According to Forex Magnates, Liberty Reserve was “the leading payment channel for traders in emerging and frontier markets” and it was used by several international forex brokers, such as Marketiva, FXOpen, Markets.com, and Instaforex. Citing Masroor Ghoori, a foreign exchange broker in Pakistan, Forex Magnates said, “Forex brokers have been benefiting from Liberty Reserve’s vast access as a payment provider, especially in countries where traders face difficulties in transferring funds. Liberty Reserve was a ‘gift’ for several traders, especially after the State Banks’ (State Bank of Pakistan) changes to international money transfers.”

In a separate report, Forex Magnates predicts that bitcoin may be a viable alternative for payments to introducing brokers and even direct forex account funding now that centralized systems are under attack.

Mitchell Rossetti, co-founder of virtual prepaid ePay Cards, told the BBC that his company now faces an “uphill battle” to make up potentially lost funds because his business had about $28,000 sitting in a Liberty Reserve account at the time the site went offline. The cards allow consumers outside the U.S. to purchase goods from stores in the country as if they owned a locally-issued Visa or Mastercard credit card. Based in Texas and London, the firm allowed its customers to load their virtual prepaid cards with Liberty Reserve because it was quick, efficient and secure.

Demonstrating that those most harmed in targeted digital currency shutdowns are law-abiding U.S. citizens, Panamanian payment system Perfect Money announced the following on Saturday:

"Due to changes in our policy we forbid new registrations from individuals or companies based in the United States of America. This includes US citizens residing overseas. If you fall under the above mentioned category or a US resident, please do not register an account with us. We apologize for inconvenience caused."

Credit Unions Fear Collateral Damage from FATCA

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Thursday, May 23, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/credit-unions-fear-collateral-damage-from-fatca-1059360-1.html

Last month, I warned that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, an attempt by the U.S. to impose reporting burdens on other countries' banks, would produce blowback for domestic financial institutions. Credit unions, at least, are worried.

The powerful Credit Union National Association has thrown its support behind Senator Rand Paul's bill to repeal the anti-privacy provisions of this heavy-handed law. "We share your concern that FATCA, if left in place, will impose billions of dollars of compliance costs on U.S. credit unions and banks annually," Bill Cheney, CUNA's president and CEO, wrote to Sen. Paul on May 8. "We are also concerned that FATCA and FATCA-related intergovernmental agreements with foreign nations undermine the constitutional privacy rights of U.S. credit union members and bank customers."

Cheney went on to emphasize the fear of reciprocation by foreign governments for Washington's overreaching.
"CUNA is also concerned that the European Union is considering adopting a 'European FATCA' which would regulate U.S. credit unions and banks in the same manner that the United States' FATCA purports to regulate credit unions and banks in the European Union," he wrote. "Unless Congress repeals FATCA, we think that it is only a matter of time before the extraterritorial diktats of a European FATCA and other FATCA-inspired foreign laws become additional compliance burdens on U.S. financial institutions." As the largest credit union advocacy association in the United States, CUNA represents nearly 90% of America's 7,000 state and federally chartered credit unions and their 96 million members.

Sen. Paul has cited the destructive effects of the law and questioned its legitimacy as a tool to combat tax evasion, arguing that "FATCA has had the practical effect of forcing [foreign financial institutions] to relinquish any association with American customers, and to avoid direct investment in the United States. Perhaps even more troubling, the implementation of FATCA has allowed the Treasury Department to make independent decisions with respect to the sovereignty of foreign nations and the privacy of United States citizens."

CUNA's support for rolling back FATCA follows a move on March 27 by the World Council of Credit Unions, which represents member-owned cooperative nonprofit lenders in 100 countries. Michael S. Edwards, the council's vice president and chief counsel, called for full repeal of the law, similarly citing the boomeranging costs of FATCA from foreign institutions to domestic U.S. entities like credit unions.

By comparison, the credit unions' banking brethren have been subdued in their resistance to FATCA. Texas and Florida banks have sued to block a regulation requiring them to tell the IRS when they pay interest to nonresident aliens, and the American Bankers Association has urged the agency to spare certain products and balances from reporting requirements.

Aside from the credit unions, many in Washington are weighing in on the matter. In its 2014 budget, the administration buried a request for Congress to authorize the Treasury Department to issue unprecedented regulations requiring U.S. financial institutions to report information on nonresident accounts for the IRS to share with foreign governments. This plan may be dead on arrival.

According to the White House's "Analytical Perspectives to the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget," "the [budget] proposal would provide the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to prescribe regulations that would require reporting of information with respect to nonresident alien individuals, entities that are not U.S. persons, and certain U.S. entities held in substantial part by non-U.S. owners, including information regarding account balances and payments made with respect to accounts held by such persons and entities."

Without such authority, the Treasury Department will be unable to follow up on its promises that have been a part of the already-negotiated "intergovernmental agreements." The IGAs have been instrumental in persuading foreign governments to enforce FATCA on themselves in exchange for imposing FATCA-like mandates domestically in the United States. But the agreements are an unauthorized creation of the U.S. Treasury Department, according to McGill University law professor Allison Christians, author of a recent Tax Notes International article, "The Dubious Legal Pedigree of IGAs (and Why It Matters)."

James George Jatras of RepealFATCA.com calls Sen. Paul's bill "a major game-changer." He also predicts Congress will fail to legislate the necessary reciprocity authority to rescue the flawed statute. "With the wind in Washington now blowing against FATCA, foreign governments are on notice that Treasury's promises of 'reciprocity' are plain rubbish," according to Jatras.

Though Sen. Paul's bill aims to repeal only certain anti-privacy provisions of the FATCA legislation and a companion version is expected in the House, he has also been holding up Senate approval of all tax treaties since he was elected in 2010.

Jatras encourages all international firms to get involved, adding that "American and non-U.S. firms that stand to lose millions of dollars each complying with FATCA need to help push the repeal bill through. FATCA repeal needs to be part of any tax reform."

With a litany of bipartisan reasons to oppose FATCA, ranging from privacy and sovereignty to U.S. economic competitiveness, it is startling that the legislation has advanced as far as it has. The situation speaks volumes about the opaque process of continually "hiding" the specifics of putting laws into practice in other legislation, resulting in the nearly seven-year implementation timetable.

Money Laundering Is Financial Thoughtcrime

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Tuesday, May 7, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-financial-thoughtcrime-1058902-1.html

When people hear the term money laundering today, they envision the most evil of acts, in which gangsters process satchels of cash through a fabricated company to show it as business revenue. Words and semantics are very important in this post-9/11 world, and as far as creating a negative connotation, that parlance has been extremely effective.

At its essence, money laundering is the act of concealing money or assets from the state to prevent its loss through taxation, judgment enforcement, or blatant confiscation. However, as the late J. Orlin Grabbe wrote: "Anyone who has studied the evolution of money-laundering statutes in the U.S. and elsewhere will realize that the 'crime' of money laundering boils down to a single, basic prohibited act: Doing something and not telling the government about it."

Protecting one's wealth is interwoven with the history of trade and banking which has existed since the dawn of commerce. Sterling Seagrave's Lords of the Rim describes how some 2,000 years before Christ, merchants in China would hide their wealth from rulers who would simply take it from them and subsequently banish them. This concealment involved moving the wealth and investing it in remote provinces or outside China.

Part myth, part rumor, the plausible tale of Mafia gangsters running huge amounts of cash from extortion, prostitution, gambling and bootleg liquor through existing Laundromats accounts for the phrase money laundering.

Also during this period, Al Capone was convicted in October 1931 for tax evasion, which is what earned the prosecutor's conviction rather than the predicate crimes that generated his illicit income. Capone's episode inspired Meyer Lansky, the mob's accountant, who structured elaborate international and Swiss financial facilities for safely securing money and vowed never to suffer Capone's fate.

Lansky is credited with designing one of the first real laundering techniques, the use of the "loan-back" concept, which disguised allegedly illegal money within "loans" provided by compliant foreign banks. The money could then be justified as revenue and a tax deduction for interest expense obtained in the process.

Without any method of tracking cash or bank activity, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970, heralding the age of transaction reporting, including the Currency Transaction Report (Form 4789), the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (Form 4790), and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (Form TD F 90-22.1). In the United States, the Money Laundering Control Act formally made money laundering a federal crime.

Internationally, the elements of the crime of money laundering are set forth in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Also, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, founded in 1989 on the initiative of the Group of Seven industrialized nations, is an intergovernmental organization whose purpose is to develop policies to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

From President Roosevelt's 1933 seizure of personal gold to the Nazi confiscation of Jewish wealth to the recent deposit theft at Cyprus banks, asset plundering by governments has a long and colorful tradition. Protecting wealth from oppressive regimes continues to this day.

It's highly political and also a matter of perspective whether protection from confiscation is a justifiable activity. Government access to wealth is at the heart of the issue and it matters not if it's hiding money or cleaning money.

Therefore, the artificial crime of "money laundering" had to be invented, mainly because more direct and traditional methods of enforcing certain laws yielded little result. Think of it as driving without a light bulb above the license plate being a felony because thieves might drive away in the night. All must participate in illuminating the way to be tracked. More than anything, this is a clear sign of regulatory desperation.

Money laundering has been called the thoughtcrime of finance. Isn't it really just banking with someone's possibly nefarious intentions attached to the act? It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen vehicle. The theft of the vehicle may have been illegal and immoral but the act of purchasing a donut is not. Money laundering is not pre-crime but post-crime. And, it's difficult to identify the victim, other than the bank shareholders that must expend millions of dollars for the proactive compliance required as the state's deputized enforcers.

Moreover, money laundering is guilt by association. If the monetary flows resulting from associated businesses are deemed illegal, then the banking activity is defined as money laundering. But, in the absence of victimless crime laws against drugs, gambling, and prostitution, the majority of banking labeled as money laundering would simply be banking.

According to the International Money Laundering Information Bureau, "Money Laundering is also the world's third-largest industry by value." Apparently, it happens in every country in the world. Well, breathing by humans also happens in every country in the world. If money laundering is actually the third-largest industry in the world then it's either being calculated wrong or it's too easily defined.

In his Rolling Stone article "Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail," Matt Taibbi mocks the anti-money-laundering regime as being hypocritical because large commercial banks like HSBC receive a light slap on the wrist and the blind-eye treatment as smaller fish are routinely scooped up in the net. Taibbi correctly distinguishes between an arrestable class and an unarrestable class. However, he misses the point of the law's arbitrariness in the first place. Thank you for the analysis, Mr. Taibbi, but dispensing enforcement of an immoral law more evenly is not a solution for justice.

Even as the money-laundering laws are said to exist for the fight against terrorism or drugs or gambling, the cashless utopia is simultaneously being thrust upon us as the monetary architecture of the future. Expect ever more increasing thoughtcrime enforcement as the international money flow tightens.

Patrick Murck Discusses Bitcoin With Financial Crime Specialists

General Counsel at the Bitcoin Foundation and VP of Business Development and General Counsel at CoinLab, Patrick Murck, recorded a podcast on April 26th, 2013 with the Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists, a group connecting the global financial crime community. The talk was entitled: "Bitcoin’s promise and perils: What financial institutions should know about the new virtual currency."

From the ACFCS website:

Until recently, the virtual currency of Bitcoin may have had almost as many critics, skeptics and naysayers as it had actual users. Much has changed in the past few months. With the value of Bitcoins exploding, its exchanges doing a lively business, and more and more merchants accepting it as payment, Bitcoin now seems close to fulfilling its potential as a widely used, decentralized online currency.

One thing that has not changed, however, are the concerns over money laundering and financial crime risks that have swirled around Bitcoin since its inception. To delve into the mechanics of the online currency and explain how it interfaces with financial institutions worldwide, ACFCS is joined by Patrick Murck, General Counsel of the Bitcoin Foundation, on this Financial CrimeCast. He explains the inner workings of Bitcoin, and describes what steps the currency and its exchanges are taking to mitigate financial crime risks.

He also analyzes the impact of recent guidance by the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that lays out suggested regulations for virtual currencies for the first time, and explains what financial institutions should know about doing business with Bitcoin users.

Bradley Jansen Discusses FinCEN Regulations and Bitcoin

Yesterday, Adam B. Levine, editor-in-chief of The Daily Bitcoin, interviewed Bradley Jansen for "Let's Talk Bitcoin" about the US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and their recent guidance on alternative currencies such as Bitcoin. According to Jansen:

"What we've got now is a FinCEN on steroids without clear restrictions from Congress!"

You can listen to the entire interview here:
http://letstalkbitcoin.tumblr.com/post/48738464442/lets-talk-bitcoin-is-a-show-for-users-new-and

Bradley is editor of FreeBanking.org and Director of the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights. He comes on at about the nine-minute mark, but the conversation before that leads into the discussion on FinCEN.

FinCEN's Director on Virtual Currencies

By Bradley Jansen
FreeBanking.org
Saturday, April 20, 2013

http://www.freebanking.org/2013/04/20/fincens-director-on-virtual-currencies/

Earlier this week, FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery addressed the National Cyber-Forensics Training Alliance CyFin 2013 Conference.

She explains again how the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) gets its data from the reports it mandates that banks use to spy on their customers against them. Lots and lots of reports.

But she promises:

"However, right now this is long and arduous work as analysts sift through hundreds and sometimes thousands of reports. Very soon, new capacities made possible by our internal technology modernization will allow our analysts to deal with such data sets to find leads in a fraction of the time previously necessary. Very soon, we will be able to point law enforcement and other stakeholders precisely to where they should be looking. Our analysts, working hand- in-hand with our superb technology team, are now putting these new capacities into place."

But her talk really focused on "Emerging Payment Systems." Her comments have echoed mine (from an entirely different perspective) that technology (and specifically mobile apps) offer great opportunities (for free banking) and that those not well served by our current system (the "unbanked" in the US--immigrants, poor, racial and ethnic minorities--and people in countries with less mature financial systems or sound currencies) are a great target market.

"As we all know, during the past decade, the development of new market space and new types of payment systems have emerged as alternatives to traditional mechanisms for conducting financial transactions, allowing developing countries to reach beyond underdeveloped infrastructure and reach those populations who previously had no access to banking services. For consumers and businesses alike, the development and proliferation of these systems are a significant continuing source of positive impact on global commerce."

Don't worry, FinCEN is working to strangle these initiatives in their crib with their regulations. She pays special attention to "crypto-currencies" in her talk.

"We’re viewing our analytic work in this space as an important part of an ongoing conversation between industry and law enforcement. While probably most of today’s audience understands what these emerging payments systems are and how they work, many line analysts, investigators, and prosecutors in law enforcement may not, and part of FinCEN’s role is to help be the bridge to explain these new systems. FinCEN is dedicated to learning more about digital currency systems, along with other emerging mechanisms, to protect those systems from abuse and to aid law enforcement in ensuring that they are getting the leads and information they need to prosecute the criminal actors. As our knowledge base develops, in concert with you, we will look to leverage our new capabilities to identify trends and patterns among the interconnection points of the traditional financial sector and these new payment systems.

In addition to developing products to help law enforcement follow the financial trails of emerging payments methods, FinCEN also develops guidance for the financial industry to clarify their regulatory responsibilities as they relate to emerging areas."

And, as our Bitcoin fans know--at least those who follow my posts here or my rants on our Facebook page, FinCEN has "virtual currencies" in their sights. And, remember too, it was FinCEN that shut down e-gold back in the day and crippled the crypto-currency movement last century.

I'll quote her in the entirety of her virtual currency remarks:

"In fact, just last month, FinCEN issued interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of BSA regulations to virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, which has in recent weeks gained significant attention. The guidance responds to questions raised by financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators concerning the regulatory treatment of persons who use virtual currencies or make a business of exchanging, accepting, and transmitting them.

FinCEN’s rules define certain businesses or individuals as money services businesses (MSBs) depending on the nature of their financial activities. MSBs have registration requirements and a range of anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting responsibilities under FinCEN’s regulations. The guidance considers the use of virtual currencies from the perspective of several categories within FinCEN’s definition of MSBs.

The guidance explains how FinCEN’s “money transmitter” definition applies to certain exchangers and system administrators of virtual currencies depending on the facts and circumstances of that activity. Those who use virtual currencies exclusively for common personal transactions like receiving payments for services or buying goods online are not affected by this guidance.

Those who are intermediaries in the transfer of virtual currencies from one person to another person, or to another location, are money transmitters that must register with FinCEN as MSBs unless an exception applies. Some virtual currency exchangers have already registered with FinCEN as MSBs, though they have not necessarily identified themselves as money transmitters. The guidance clarifies definitions and expectations to ensure that businesses engaged in similar activities are aware of their regulatory responsibilities and that all who need to, register appropriately."

The second half of her speech talked about account takeovers via malware, risks with third party payment processors, improvements they are making to their analytical work (after some false starts!), their public-private partnerships with industry, and her personal initiative "The Delta Team" ("The purpose of the Delta Team is for industry, regulators, and law enforcement to come together and examine the space between compliance risks and illicit financing risks. The goal is to reduce the variance between the two.").

And let's not forget FinCEN's dreams of global domination. They are in a partnership of 130 other "Financial Intelligence Units" as part of the Egmont Group.

The text of her remarks is available at the following link:
http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/speech/pdf/20130416.pdf

Reprinted with permission.

Bitcoin and the Rebirth of Financial Safe Havens

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Thursday, April 11, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/bitcoin-and-the-rebirth-of-financial-safe-havens-1058216-1.html

Like never before, financial privacy and safe havens are under attack the world over.

Banks and even entire jurisdictions are feverishly responding to increased government scrutiny from the world's monetary power centers in the name of exposing political corruption, combating terrorism, and preventing tax evasion.

Full financial transparency is the new mantra and it's being invoked in the name of social justice. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists recently released "Secrecy for Sale: Inside the Global Offshore Money Maze," a report that focuses on "exposing hidden dealings of politicians, con men and the mega-rich."

But why are private individuals lumped together with politicians who choose to be public figures representing the interests of their constituencies? Should private individuals and political figures be treated in the same manner regarding financial privacy?

Attorney Jenice Malecki of Malecki Law told me: "No, they should not. When you become a political figure, you agree to give up some of your privacy rights. You also need to be more transparent, so people know who you really are, whether they should believe what you say."

Politicians who do not voluntarily submit to monitoring of their financial activities will not be trusted.

"Private individuals should have more privacy, as they have not placed themselves into the political arena. They have not agreed to give up their privacy," adds Malecki. However, she also concedes that when it comes to offshore numbered accounts, "it does seem that banking secrecy is eroding. Slowly, but surely, banks are releasing information for governmental investigations."

Violations of everything from know-your-customer rules to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act  can all be loosely categorized as the politically incorrect crime of money laundering. But as the investor and author Doug Casey says, "it's a completely artificial crime. It wasn’t even heard of 20 years ago, because the 'crime' didn’t exist." Moving money around was simply called banking. Furthermore, Casey says, "The war on drugs may be where 'money laundering' originated as a crime, but today it has a lot more to do with something infinitely more important to the state: the War on Tax Evasion."

Almost simultaneously with the recent jihad against tax dodgers, decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin arrived on the scene in early 2009 and now provide an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation. The exchange rate for government fiat currencies may be volatile now, but as the market price eventually finds equilibrium and stabilizes, bitcoin will become an important store of value.

Think of bitcoin as your own personal financial safe haven or offshore bank. Previously, you had to board a jet or hire an attorney to set up legal entities and open bank accounts in private banking jurisdictions like Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands or the Cook Islands.

Simply by leveraging the distributed bitcoin block chain, which records all transactions in the system and prevents double-spending without identifying the parties by name or location, individuals can protect their wealth from privacy violations and indiscriminate confiscation without leaving the keyboard. This represents a powerful new development that the world has not seen before and it will have a profound impact on the global asset management industry specifically.

Today's best tax havens combine a no-tax jurisdiction with extreme banking secrecy enshrined in law where bank employees could face imprisonment for disclosing bank customer details to third parties or parties outside of the bank. Unsanctioned disclosure of bank account information in most tax havens is considered a criminal offense punishable by incarceration and monetary fines.

Sanctioned disclosure usually requires a recognized court order and typically hinges on the distinction between legal tax avoidance and tax evasion. Offshore jurisdictions have been feeling the pressure for several years to remove that distinction and open the banking records regardless.

The global trend persists toward cleaning up the high-risk and uncooperative countries on the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force’s blacklist. Ultimately, no jurisdiction will be exempt. On the complementary Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development gray list, the tiny alpine principality of Liechtenstein has been amending tax laws in a move to anti-secrecy compliance. Similarly, as the small haven of Cyprus had built up a burgeoning financial center for the free flow of capital within the eurozone, it too had to be restrained, even if that meant egregious depositor "haircuts" of up to 60%.

Future regulatory and confiscatory attacks on safe havens and banking secrecy will become irrelevant, because bitcoin provides for a personal "offshore center" under direct and sole control of the individual. However, Malecki cautions, "If [the] bitcoin currency's respect and security grows, the governments will also find a way to keep on top of bitcoin monitoring and enforcement.

"I think that determining 'legitimacy' is difficult," she says, "but as with political asylum, perhaps the financial world needs some financial asylum – which has very specific criteria, review and oversight. Without that, there is bound to be abuse" by governments.

Legitimacy is a politically charged term. One person's legitimacy may be another person's aggressive and unjustifiable overreach. Also, what a certain government sees as legitimate may be viewed in other parts of the world as a violation of fundamental human rights. This is clearest in authoritarian regimes that impoverish and imprison their political opponents for so-called crimes against the state.

It all depends of who is performing the oversight. I am not quite sure how any political oversight could function effectively while still protecting the financial privacy rights of individuals. Thankfully, it doesn't matter anymore.

FATCA Is Far from a Done Deal

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Monday, April 1, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/fatca-is-far-from-a-done-deal-1057947-1.html

Largely affecting those banks outside of the U.S., the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act requires all foreign financial institutions to report the activities of their American clients to the Internal Revenue Service. But given the recent demands from other nations hinting at reciprocity, the overreaching legislation could impact banks and financial institutions in the U.S. as well.

Now, there is the additional element of certain key countries rejecting FATCA outright, and the Asia-Pacific region could end up holding the most sway.

Cited as a hindrance to foreign investment that would ultimately dampen U.S. economic growth and threaten American jobs, the FATCA penalties for noncompliance provide a strong incentive for overseas investors to avoid U.S. depository institutions altogether. Tax Management International Journal cites 11 reasons why FATCA must be repealed. Reason number one is "the height of arrogance."

It is either the reciprocity angle or the cascade effect of China's reluctance that has the greatest potential to derail FATCA.

"The United States should be moving toward full reciprocity," Georgetown Law School Professor Itai Grinberg, a former Treasury official, told Reuters. He added that it would be "deeply hypocritical" for the U.S. to ask for information on American taxpayers "without offering some kind of reciprocity."

Because direct reciprocity may mean foreign banks violating the privacy laws of their own jurisdictions, the Treasury Department has started negotiating bilateral agreements so that foreign governments can aggregate the bank data necessary for the IRS.

Attorney Brian Mahany of Mahany & Ertl, a law firm specializing in offshore reporting and compliance, believes that reciprocity is a bit misleading. "We are one of the few countries that tax based on worldwide income. Reciprocity isn't as important to most other nations," he added.

Also, the U.S. is one of the worst offenders globally when it comes to tax havens and "secrecy jurisdictions." For instance, Mahany said "many people, including Chinese nationals, hide money here." While President Obama has asked Congress for reciprocity, he is dealing from a position of weakness. "The support for FATCA is not very strong," Mahany added.

However, with global financial transparency on the increase and more countries considering taxation on citizen's worldwide income as a way to combat growing budget deficits, reciprocity with U.S. financial institutions starts to look appealing.

On the China issue, Mahany concedes that the U.S. government will never get every nation to join FATCA and the Asia-Pacific countries are heavily influenced by Beijing. He states, "China is certainly an important player. Currently, none of the Asian-Pacific countries are signed up, although Japan will probably be the first. Without Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Macau, FATCA faces real challenges."

James Jatras of the Repeal FATCA campaign claims that Hong Kong, like the People’s Republic of China, is not even on the list of 50 countries the Treasury claims to be negotiating with.

There will probably be so few U.S. citizens holding bank accounts in China that the cost of implementing FATCA outweighs the benefit to China's financial institutions. Also, the Chinese taxpayers with U.S. bank accounts appear to be of minimal interest to the Chinese government, according to Lisa Smith of iExpats.com.

"Before rushing to safe keep all your money in Communist China, remember that even if China elects to ignore FATCA, they may still cooperate with the IRS on a case-by-case basis," according to Mahany. China and the U.S. signed a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement in June of 2000.

However, none of this potentially disruptive turmoil means that financial institutions should put FATCA-related IT infrastructure plans on hold until China makes its decision, because foreign banks and other financial institutions are currently ill-prepared for FATCA.

According to Mahany, "Implementation has been delayed once but folks should not depend on that happening again. The penalties for not complying outweigh the risks of noncompliance."

Meredith Moss of Finomial believes "that a technology solution is the only way to go, given the tremendous amount of data, PDFs and paper documents to sift through." She says that banks moving forms online and creating a comprehensive FATCA audit trail will demonstrate diligence to the regulators and that "due diligence should be underway by January 2014 and completed by July 2014."

Although experts in the FATCA preparation business tend to agree that moving forward with expensive FATCA compliance plans is the prudent and logical step to be taking now, a comprehensive and worldwide FATCA rollout is far from a foregone conclusion. For those financial institutions and their shareholders offended by the overreaching legislation and lack of respect for mutual sovereignty, the cost savings alone may start to make FATCA's non-compliance penalties look tolerable.

Bitcoin Foundation Reacts To FinCEN Guidance

By Patrick Murck
Bitcoin Foundation
Tuesday, March 19, 2013

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/today-we-are-all-money-transmitters-no-really/

FinCEN shook us all from our Monday afternoon stupor by dropping some provocative “guidance” for those involved in the business and use of digital currencies and, in particular those of us involved with the grand experiment that is Bitcoin.

You can and should read what FinCEN had to say for yourself here.

Upon an initial reading two things struck me:

1. FinCEN firmly believes that virtual currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, does not fall under the prepaid access rules.
2. FinCEN seems intent on recreating and expanding the prepaid access rules for virtual currency and bitcoin under the mantle of money transmission.

I was happy to see FinCEN issue some clarity around the overly-broad prepaid access rules and definitively state that they do not apply in the context of bitcoin. This is quite interesting because in my conversations with seasoned payments and digital currency lawyers, prepaid access seemed to be the most likely trigger for FinCEN regulation – closely followed, of course, by money transmission.

That’s about where my happiness ended as the clear guidance quickly devolved into something a little less comprehensible.

In particular, I’m a little disheartened that FinCEN appears to be creating an entirely new regulatory scheme under the guise of “guidance.” Of course, FinCEN cannot rely on this guidance in any enforcement action, as they must readily acknowledge. Simply put, under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), FinCEN can’t promulgate new rules without going through a notice and comment proceeding whereby the public may have their voices heard. If FinCEN would like to expand its statutory authority over “money transmitters” to include brand new categories such as “administrators” and “exchangers” of digital currency it must do so through proper rule making proceedings and not by fiat. I welcome that conversation.

State Money Transmitter Issues

It should also be noted at the outset, in case there is any confusion, that FinCEN’s rule-making and interpretations have no practical effect on State money transmitter laws (although FinCEN or Congress may preempt such State laws in the future). State MTB laws and enforcement is something that should be discussed, and to some degree worried about, but it’s a separate issue.

FinCEN Overreaches

Read closely FinCEN’s guidance implies that every person who has ever had any virtual currency and has ever exchanged that virtual currency for real currency may now be considered a money transmitter under the Bank Secrecy Act. That is, of course, an untenable position.

FinCEN starts going off the tracks early on, as they carefully define a “User” (not subject to MSB registration) as “a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services” as opposed to an “Exchanger” who is “a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency.” Left unsaid are any specifics around the facts and circumstances that would constitute “engaging as a business.”

What is crystal-clear is that once a person sells a single Satoshi for real currency that person is no longer a “User” and therefore not categorically exempted from MSB registration.

Later in the document as FinCEN turns its attention to discussing decentralized virtual currencies we get the money paragraph.

In a bizarre shot across the bow at miners, FinCEN states unequivocally that “a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter.”

And then, for good measure, FinCEN completely muddies the waters by stating: “In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such decentralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.”

FinCEN’s position as it relates to bitcoin can be summed up as follows:

1. A person may spend money to purchase bitcoin or mine bitcoin and then exchange the currency for goods and/or services without having to register with FinCEN as an MSB.
2. If a person receives real money in exchange for their bitcoin they MAY have to register with FinCEN.
3. If a miner exchanges their mined bitcoin for real money they MUST register with FinCEN.
4. Anyone transacting bitcoin on someone else’s behalf MUST register with FinCEN.

This framework would wildly expand the reach of FinCEN and the BSA, and would be infeasible for many, if not most, members of the bitcoin community to comply with. An individual or micro-business cannot be expected to create a robust AML/KYC program anytime they sell 1 or 100 bitcoin on an exchange or in-person. The BSA was never intended to apply this broadly and reach this far into people’s everyday lives. Perhaps a little more guidance is needed.

Patrick Murck is general counsel at the Bitcoin Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

For further reading:
"The War On Bitcoin—and Anonymity", Eli Dourado, March 20, 2013
"FinCEN sounds death knell for US based Bitcoin businesses", Irdial, March 19, 2013

FinCEN Spying Plan Invites Privacy Workarounds

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Thursday, March 21, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/fincen-spying-plan-invites-privacy-workarounds-1057728-1.html

The dangers to financial privacy are monumental. Consider an Obama administration plan to give spy agencies unfettered access to data on American citizens and others who bank in the U.S.

Suspicious Activity Reports, filed by financial institutions that operate in the U.S., are the primary documents that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network intends to share. The reports cover all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking and counterfeiting.

The Treasury Department proposal, revealed by Reuters last week, aims to consolidate financial data banks, criminal records and military intelligence. This initiative will put intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, on the same footing as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which currently does not have to make case-by-case informational requests to Fincen.

Also under the new proposal, Fincen's database would be linked to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, which U.S. defense and law enforcement agencies use to share classified information.

Money was never meant to be a method of supranational identity tracking. Its use in that way could signal some level of law enforcement desperation. When all other enforcement tactics fail, surveil the finances.

More than 25,000 financial firms, including banks, securities dealers, casinos, and money transfer agencies, routinely file "suspicious activity reports" to Fincen, according to the Reuters article. Banks and other firms tend to over-report some financial details of ordinary citizens since the requirements for filing are so strict they don't want to be accused of failing to disclose activity that later proves questionable.

Increasing encroachment against financial privacy like this Fincen move "raises concerns as to whether people could find their information in a file as a potential terrorist suspect without having the appropriate predicate for that and find themselves potentially falsely accused," Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel for the Rule of Law Program at the Constitution Project, told Reuters.

One protection from becoming scooped up in a fishing expedition and being falsely accused is the use of virtual or alternative currencies. But this week, Fincen issued guidance on virtual currencies and regulatory responsibilities.

Clarifying circumstances where the "money transmitter" definition applies under the law, Fincen classified de-centralized virtual currency as a convertible virtual currency that has no central repository and no single administrator, and that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort. Although bitcoin was not singled out by name, the guidance appears directed at cryptocurrencies that operate in a peer-to-peer, distributed fashion such as Bitcoin.

The primary impact of the likely tighter compliance will be felt by the bitcoin-to-fiat exchanges operating in the U.S. and this will lead to jurisdictional competition, as seen in online casino gambling where the more entrepreneurial jurisdictions rose to dominance by embracing the technology early and not overregulating.

Almost serendipitously, discussions about adding privacy extensions to the Bitcoin cryptographic money protocol have been increasing lately.

Bitcoin is nonpolitical money and it falls outside the scope of reporting financial institutions. Since bitcoin does not provide user and transactional privacy by default, multiple bitcoin wallets and Tor, a client software and volunteer server network that enables online anonymity, can enhance privacy without modification to the core Bitcoin code. Nonetheless, code-modifying proposals for augmenting Bitcoin privacy have been introduced. One idea calls for automatic mixing techniques, which would periodically give all users the opportunity to shuffle coins among one another, making the money harder to trace without implicating individuals. Another concept is "coin control," a method for users to select which of their wallet’s multiple addresses to use as the "from address" (currently picked somewhat randomly by the client software).

Various proposals for improving bitcoin privacy include "Patching The Bitcoin Client" (2011), "Automatic Coin Mixing" (2012), "Coin Control" (2012), and "Yet Another Coin Control Release" (2013).

Also, a recent cryptographic bitcoin privacy extension submitted by researchers from The Johns Hopkins University was accepted for presentation to the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy in Oakland, Calif. The paper Zerocoin: Anonymous Distributed E-Cash from Bitcoin will be introduced on day two of the May conference.

Having received a preliminary copy of the academic paper, I interviewed Hopkins research professor Matthew Green about some of the details of Zerocoin.

Operating as a decentralized layer of anonymous cash on top of the existing Bitcoin network, "Zerocoin creates an 'escrow pool' of bitcoins, which users can contribute to and then later redeem from," Green explained. Users receive different coins than they put in (though the same amount) and there is no entity that can trace your transactions or steal your money. "Unlike previous e-cash schemes, this whole process requires no trusted party. As long as all the nodes in the network support the Zerocoin protocol, the system works in a fully distributed fashion," added Green.

Zerocoin developers are working on improved efficiency because implementation is impractical today given the space constraints of the “blocks” that make up the Bitcoin public ledger. "For one thing, the transactions are very large (40kb to spend a coin)," Green said. "While this isn't the end of the world – and bandwidth is always increasing – supporting these would put quite a strain on the block chain."

When I asked Green about the possibility of a "back door" for law enforcement that had been floated recently, he clarified, "The back door isn't part of Zerocoin. There's absolutely no need for it, and building one in would take significant additional effort. In fact, we only mentioned it as a brief note in the conclusion of our paper, mostly to motivate future research work."

If someone did try to build a back door for any reason, the open source Zerocoin would quickly become Zero-adoption.

Bitcoin Exchange Deal Repatriates Assets To U.S.

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Saturday, March 2, 2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/03/02/bitcoin-exchange-deal-repatriates-assets-to-u-s/

Although the deal for Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange and CoinLab to partner on U.S. customer business was brokered by Seattle-based CoinLab, it would not have been possible without a solid and willing financial institution in the United States.

Innovative Silicon Valley Bank stepped up to the plate and agreed to facilitate the U.S. dollar financial flows for individuals and businesses managing trading accounts on bitcoin's largest floating-rate exchange. For better or worse, this launches the exchange directly into the world of the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as SVB already adheres to those strict reporting requirements. "Like any new business we are looking at it very carefully and we are willing to entertain the idea while monitoring the industry closely," says Carrie Merritt, director of public relations at SVB.

Japan-based Mt. Gox sees about 80 percent of their traffic originating from North America. The new deal should vastly improve the speed of Mt. Gox account setup and funds clearing which improves overall liquidity. Additionally, with a bank in the U.S. providing smooth transfer of funds, it paves the way for hedge funds and other institutional investors to enter the market because investment charters can sometimes limit new placements to U.S. entities only.

Speaking to Forbes, CoinLab CEO Peter Vessenes explained that the exclusive 10-year deal will bring "a specialized user interface to the Mt. Gox platform and facilitate larger transaction sizes for better liquidity, maybe even adding forex trading APIs and FIX protocol support." Structurally, with CoinLab providing back-end clearing services and local customer support, Mt. Gox eliminates the need to open a U.S. subsidiary on their own which would have involved a significant investment in administrative overhead.

Despite the fact that foreign dollar deposits are already held at correspondent money center banks in New York, the centralized and unfettered enforcement access to customer data becomes the single greatest aspect of this new deal. The move to domicile in the U.S. may prove counterproductive if bitcoin trading volume is driven to smaller, less regulated offshore exchanges.

As nonpolitical cryptographic money, bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender in any jurisdiction so exchanges are technically not considered to be 'foreign currency dealers' nor is bitcoin officially recognized as a 'prepaid access' device. Nonetheless, CoinLab took the step last week of registering with FinCEN to become a Money Services Business (MSB) and their entity and registration number are available here. Since they are a self-declared seller of prepaid access (MSB code 413), they now must comply with a litany of Bank Secrecy Act requirements, including Suspicious Activity Reporting.

According to Vessenes, the arrangement involved several high-level discussions with Silicon Valley Bank on the legalities and merits of entering the bitcoin business. Asked if the federally-chartered, FDIC-insured banking partnership would mean fewer compliance responsibilities for CoinLab, Vessenes replied, "I wish. We will be increasing both compliance and customer support staff in the coming weeks." He added that, "CoinLab's new Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program and Know Your Customer (KYC) controls will be reviewed periodically by Silicon Valley Bank and certain employees will have to complete regular AML training."

Mt. Gox grew to its current size before the strict regulatory framework advanced around them and they genuinely seem like a reluctant participant in the strenuous and exhausting labyrinth of compliance measures. Although a more free market approach would have been to establish banking relationships in a variety of jurisdictions and challenge the perceived status of bitcoin trading as "currency trading," I don't get the sense that they intend to use the issue of regulation and a licensed U.S. bank as a tool for competitive advantage.

It's more likely that Mt. Gox's local banking partners did not want to be involved with such a large U.S. customer base requiring adherence to the U.S.-led  Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) monitoring and reporting regime. Japan has agreed to become FATCA compliant by 2014.

For the U.S. citizens that make up the majority of the exchange's customer base, FATCA ensures that it doesn't really matter where they maintain customer fund accounts, so for those customers the deal primarily improves transfer fees and clearing time for U.S. dollar funds. Mt. Gox's non-U.S. customers (except Canadians) are not affected by the change and they continue with procedures as before the announcement.

The transition of customer business from Mt. Gox to CoinLab involves three phases and yes it will include Canadian customers too.  Phase one is alpha with about 100 customers starting in a few days, phase two is beta with 5,000 customers on March 15th, and phase three is all accounts going live on March 29th. Account transitions are voluntary for customers, otherwise affected accounts will be closed. All trade matching will still occur on Mt. Gox systems.

Mark Karpeles is Managing Director at Mt. Gox, part of Tibanne Co. Ltd. (Japan), which is self-funded without venture capital. Peter Vessenes as CEO of CoinLab, Inc. previously took $500,000 in start-up funds to leverage bitcoin mining opportunities for gamers. Greg Becker is President and CEO at Silicon Valley Bank.

Expect Blowback if KYC Rules Are Expanded

By Jon Matonis
American Banker
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/expect-blowback-if-kyc-rules-are-expanded-1057055-1.html

The uncovering of an alleged $200 million credit card fraud scheme has triggered calls to expand know-your-customer rules. Those who prescribe ever-greater surveillance should be careful what they wish for.

In what was described as a sprawling criminal enterprise stretching across dozens of states and numerous countries, fabricated identities were used to obtain credit cards and doctor credit reports to borrow large amounts of money. At the heart of the alleged scheme were the merchant processor accounts used to accept and process the cards with stolen identities, authorities announced on Feb. 5. ATM withdrawals involve video surveillance and direct purchasing of merchandise doesn't yield cash. So the fraud ring allegedly used merchant accounts, mostly those of jewelry stores, since it is easier to obtain cash in a bank account using a fictitious sales transaction.

In some instances, sham companies were created and then those businesses established the direct relationship with the merchant processor and purchased the credit card terminals, the FBI said. Involving 25,000 fraudulent credit cards, 7,000 fake identities, and 1,800 "drop addresses," the conspirators allegedly wired millions overseas to Pakistan, India, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Romania, China, and Japan.

For the duration of the probe, account information was known about the senders of international wire transfers, but not much was known about the recipients.

That is why experts are now pointing to this alleged scheme as justification for the expansion of Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations to include the identification and scrutiny of the recipients of funds associated with high-risk transactions.

Micah Willbrand, director of AML and compliance for LexisNexis' North American Financial Services Markets, told a trade publication, "Laws and regulations today only require that the bank have KYC [know your customer] in place for the sender, not the receiver of money."

"But card fraud schemes demonstrate why it's imperative to have KYC controls in place for both senders and recipients," he adds. As a result of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, "all countries are realizing we need to know more about who's receiving the money. We need to be more transparent about how money is moving around the world, and that is something everyone is coming around to."

That is a very optimistic assumption, especially since considerable resistance already exists regarding global standardization of information-sharing. Ultimately, compliance would require a lot more legwork and due diligence on the part of banks, and financial institutions have been reluctant to move in this direction. If banks were required to replicate the current KYC controls for recipients as well as senders, the jurisdictional challenges would be complicated and expensive.

Willbrand justifies the investment cost in a subtle Risk.net advertorial “article”: "The implementation of FATCA will guide financial institutions … globally by providing them with a reference on what verification is required of their customers and the level of due diligence required from them based on their asset transfers. FATCA will, therefore, enable FIs everywhere to create a standardised customer onboarding process that will clearly define risk tolerances and accepted practices for engaging with customers."

Expanding KYC guidelines to include the recipient of funds would require a massive uniform international process that is continually monitored and updated. Additionally, the cross-border sharing of customer information could realistically lead to equally determined calls for reciprocity on the part of U.S. financial institutions. U.S. banks that act on behalf of the recipients of international funds could find themselves swarmed with overseas requests for KYC information prior to any funds transfer.

For Willbrand, it's a Big Data problem of not enough domestic and international information available to detect anomalies and potential risks earlier. Automated third-party systems are more efficient than the manual review systems in place at some banks today. Willbrand says, "Data about identities is not combined internationally. The only way to get an accurate profile is by cross-checking public records with utility bills and bank accounts around the world."

Willbrand's call for expansion of money transfer surveillance powers represents an overreach that merely attacks the symptom of the problem. Privacy and data security rules vary, and sometimes conflict, in the many jurisdictions around the world. Big Data might be the answer, but it should be Big Data at the front end, during the credit card account opening process and the determination of spending limits – not Big Data that extends privacy violations worldwide.

France Plans To Prohibit Cash Payments Over €1,000

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Thursday, February 14, 2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/02/14/france-plans-to-prohibit-cash-payments-over-e1000/

One of the best things about covering payments news is that you never run out of stories where various myopic governments attempt to restrict the flow of cash in a squeeze for revenue.

France becomes the latest as Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault plans to erect new controls on cash transactions in order to tighten up tax collection and meet the country's optimistic budget deficit target of 3% of GDP. The government needs euros and they need some fast.

In the government plan labeled "Fight against fraud," France's fiscal residents would see the cash transaction limit decrease from €3,000 to €1,000 per purchase. However, in a nod to the exiled wealthy and what Wolf Richter calls the "Depardieu exception," those fiscal residents of a country other than France would have their cash transaction limits reduced from €15,000 to €10,000 per purchase. Legislative measures could be finalized by the end of 2013.

Richter illustrates the ban's impact with an example of purchasing a used car: "two crisp 500-euro bills and a single coin -- voilà, an illegal transaction." Used cars could easily cost more than €1,000 and accepting cash protects the seller, but the larger problem may be finding those 500-euro bills in the first place. While the southern coast of Spain was once believed to have the highest concentration of 500-euro notes in circulation, the distinctive purple bill has become more like the unicorn of Europe because they are rarely seen. The UK banned the sale of 500-euro notes at exchange offices in 2010.

"It has long been the dream of collectivists and technocratic elites to eliminate the semi-unregulated cash economy and black markets in order to maximise taxation and to fully control markets," writes Patrick Henningsen at the Centre for Research on Globalization. "If the cashless society is ushered in, they will have near complete control over the lives of individual people."

The anti-cashists have escalated this sad drama to a point where it has become like boiling a frog. The limits are incrementally lowered and lowered until one day, people wake up and realize that only fully traceable transactions are permitted in the new cashless society.

In many regions around the world, a strong and vibrant cash economy is actually underpinning the faltering national economies that no longer offer sufficient mainstream opportunities for their citizens. By some estimates, the global off-the-grid economy represents $10 trillion worth of economic activity per year. People will produce, consume, and trade in order to survive and bearer cash plays a critical role in that process.

The futuristic cashless society is marketed as being ultra-modern and at the forefront of technology. However, it is more like the last gasp of a dying behemoth and it is the poor that will suffer the most.

In responding to Simon's Black's description of Emperor Diocletian's 3rd-century tax reforms in All Transactions To Be Conducted In The Presence Of A Tax Collector, a reader commented that "Tax evasion always increases along with the tax burden." He continued, "In fact, it acts as a safety-valve against rebellion.  Since the rich will always have means to escape heavy taxation, the burden of bloated government bureaucracy will eventually fall the heaviest on those of lesser means."

Is there anywhere left to go if you don't welcome the fully-traceable cashless society? Spain recently banned cash transactions above 2,500 euros and Italy banned cash transactions above 1,000 euros.

France and other anti-cashist countries could quickly become nations of smurfs, referring to the practice of smurfing, which is a method of structuring cash transactions into smaller deposits of money to avoid cash reporting requirements.

B of A Snubs Two Gun Makers as Banking Becomes Politicized

By Jon Matonis

American Banker

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

 

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/bank-of-america-snubs-gun-makers-as-banking-becomes-politicized-1056597-1.html

In one of the more memorable scenes from Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, the filmmaker walks into a rural bank in Michigan and promptly receives a free rifle for opening a new account. Moore quips, "Do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?"

Bank of America thinks it's more than just a little dangerous – it reportedly wants to discourage some gun manufacturers from even having accounts at the bank. Largely neglected by the mainstream press, two particular firearms manufacturer cases represent an emerging political climate in U.S. banking. I am not accusing anyone in the media of "bias by omission" concerning the stories of McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and American Spirit Arms, but these are fairly recent episodes with considerable consequence.

B of A justified freezing the deposits of 10-year customer American Spirit Arms for three weeks beginning Dec. 18 by saying that the deposits were held for "further review." Even though American Spirit Arms is a properly licensed firearms manufacturer which submits to regular audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Homeland Security, Bank of America also said, "We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet." Happily, the Internet played a role in resolving the issue, as business owner Joseph Sirochman told anchorperson Megyn Kelly on Fox News' America Live.

Another disturbing episode involved McMillan Firearms Manufacturing in April 2012. In expanding a routine "account analysis" meeting to include the larger political issue of overall business purpose, Bank of America directly suggested that the firearms manufacturer take its business elsewhere. Bank of America replied to the allegations here and McMillan responded again here.

Beginning in a visible way with the 2011 full-scale banking and payments blockade against WikiLeaks, politically motivated acts by private financial institutions appear to be on the rise. Banks are beginning to use considerable discretion in deciding what constitutes an illegal act and sometimes even an immoral act. Freeze the funds first – ask questions later. After all, it's their bank, right?

Yes, private companies can choose who they elect to do business with. However, it has a chilling effect when the directives come in a soft way from regulators or from a financially-supportive government. Historically, banks exercise discretion and that discretion can escalate into subtle differences in treatment. Such as when to file a suspicious activities report or when a customer's deposits and withdrawals start to look excessively high.

Banks are increasingly in the role of enforcer and watchdog for the regulators. That is the basis of enforcement for many of the country's anti-money laundering laws and know-your-customer guidelines. The duty falls to the financial institutions and they are periodically reviewed as to their monitoring prowess. For the most part, banks do not have a choice in providing this quasi-enforcement role on behalf of the government, but it does set the stage for further encroachments into business and individual privacy.

Although Sirochman eventually succeeded in getting most of his deposits released, he still proceeded to open new accounts at a different bank.

Afterwards, Bank of America sent The Huffington Post this statement: "This customer's concerns have been resolved. Any spike in transaction volumes is routinely reviewed by the bank in order to protect our customers. This process is initiated regardless of the industry in which they do business." (Indeed, B of A still banks other gun manufacturers – a few weeks ago Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel sent CEO Brian Moynihan a letter urging the lender to pressure a firearm maker client to support new gun controls.)

Something clearly got bungled at Bank of America. No bank wants that kind of publicity. Either a few rogue regional managers acted on their own behalf or a policy directive from the corporate level was miscommunicated. This is a complex issue and typically wide latitude is given on how policy directives are implemented, including triggers for account freezes and their subsequent release. It is also nearly impossible to ascertain or confirm from where a subtle directive originates, which is probably why these stories weren't investigated further.

How ironic it would be to have the North Country Bank and Trust from Moore's film acquired by Bank of America in the next wave of bank consolidations.

Finance Without Fingerprints

American Banker aired this encouraging financial privacy video on Friday, February 15, 2013:
 

Physical cash is on its way out and won't be missed, but even in an all-digital future the option of anonymous, untraceable consumer payments must remain, Executive Editor Marc Hochstein argues. Bitcoin and past digital cash schemes show it is technically feasible and that banks can play a role. But regulations and the industry's conservatism augur poorly for payment privacy, and a frank and open debate will be required.

Related Articles:
A Dystopian Vision of Banking from the 'Mad Men' Era
Why Some Payments Should Remain Anonymous 

Will Banks Ever Be Digital Privacy 'Heroes'?

EU Court Strikes Down Swift's Blockade Against Iranian Banks

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Friday, February 8, 2013

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/02/08/eu-court-strikes-down-swifts-blockade-against-iranian-banks/

Reuters is reporting that a European Union court has ruled against the EU banking sanctions imposed on one of Iran's largest banks, which extends to the payment sanctions imposed by Swift in March of last year. This represents the second such judgment against the banking sanctions and brings into question the legitimacy of using the Swift payments network as an economic weapon.

On Tuesday, the EU's General Court ruled that, in the case of Bank Saderat, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the bank was involved in Iran's nuclear program. Last week, the court issued a similar ruling in the case of Bank Mellat, the largest private sector lender in Iran. Boycotted by the EU since July 2010 and blocked out of Swift since March 2012, the two banks had filed suit with the European court to challenge those sanctions. EU governments now have two months to appeal the recent decisions.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, is a worldwide financial messaging network to facilitate the interbank transfer of funds. Speaking after a news conference in Dubai, Swift's chief executive Gottfried Leibbrandt indicated that talks are continuing with European regulators about the appropriateness of requiring Swift to impose sanctions on countries such as Iran.

A global network for the transfer of funds loses some of its effectiveness once its neutrality becomes tarnished, because any member of the network could be similarly targeted without recourse.

Leibbrandt said, "There is a dialogue going on around the trade-off between using us as a sanctions tool for other countries and impeding our role as really serving as a global infrastructure mechanism." He added that "there are lots of alternatives to Swift" and international transactions can still be executed by sending instructions via telephone or email, but such alternatives are "not as secure as Swift and [lack] the convenience factor."

One such alternative is the gold bullion trade. Buyers of Iranian oil and gas must deposit payment in a local bank account and it cannot be transferred abroad. Iran sells natural gas to Turkey and receives payment in Turkish lira, which are then used to purchase gold bars in Turkey. Couriers using hand luggage carry the bullion to Dubai, where it is sold for foreign currency or shipped to Iran.

Turkish Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan said, "We will continue to make our gold exports this year to whoever seeks them. We have no restrictions and are not bound by restrictions imposed by others." Turkey was granted a six-month U.S. waiver that exempted it from financial sanctions against Iran but the waiver is due to expire in July. Also in December, the U.S. Senate passed expanded sanctions on trade with Iran which included restricting trade in precious metals.

Caglayan maintained that Turkey's state-owned Halkbank will continue its existing transactions with Iran but some other banks had pulled back in response to U.S. pressure since those private banks had activities in the U.S.

Also, Washington has warned Moscow on the implications for Russian banks and has sanctioned the parent company of Russia's Mir Business Bank, state-owned Bank Melli Iran, claiming that the Moscow-based bank has become a conduit for Iranian's seeking to keep trade flowing. "Only problem is Russians don't care what we think," according to Jim Rickards, author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Crisis.

In the meantime, over 30 cases are still pending at the EU General Court, including cases filed by the Central Bank of Iran and the National Iranian Oil Company.