Bitcoin ATMs Declared Illegal in UK by Financial Regulator (gizmodo.com) 45
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency ATMs that allow people to buy and sell crypto are illegal in the UK, according to a letter made public on Friday by Britain's Financial Conduct Authority. From a report: That means anyone currently operating a Bitcoin ATM is doing so illegally and will have to stop, according to the government regulator. "Crypto ATMs offering cryptoasset exchange services in the UK must be registered with us and comply with UK Money Laundering Regulations," the Financial Conduct Authority announced on its website. "None of the cryptoasset firms registered with us have been approved to offer crypto ATM services, meaning that any of them operating in the UK are doing so illegally and consumers should not be using them," the FCA continued. It's unclear how many bitcoin ATMs may currently be in operation throughout Britain, though the online tracker Coin ATM Tracker claims there are currently 84 in the UK. The same website lists over 34,000 crypto ATMs in the U.S. alone, by far the largest number in the world.
So now what happens (Score:2)
Will there be any actual enforcement here? It didn't sound like they were going to find and confiscate them, just telling people not to use them... it seems like they would remain for quite some time, maybe indefinitely despite being technically illegal...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there will.
The FCA will shut you down, freeze all your money and assets and take you to court, they are very able and willing to do that.
100 of 250 listed companies immediately shut up shop when they were put on the list.
Money laundering regulation is a huge issue at the moment, you can't buy legally a house without declaring where the source of your deposit came from now, charities have to determine and declare the origin of any "anonymous" large donation (£5k or above, I think), and if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations hammer is comeing down and exchange (Score:2)
Regulations hammer is comeing down and exchanges can be cut off from banking so what then use western union?
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations hammer is comeing down and exchanges can be cut off from banking so what then use western union?
That will work for transferring money, as it long has. But it is also monitored, at minimum by reporting requirements for transfers over x dollar value, and more likely every transaction is sent to the feds. If Western Union isn't part of PRISM, I'd be dumbfounded. At best the feds will pretend it isn't, and will use the data only for parallel construction.
Whole idea is stupid. (Score:3)
I'm really at this point just against the entire idea of these idiotic money laundering laws. We can't use anything to transfer assets that they can't monitor? Seriously?
Another case similar with merchants trying to control borders to artificially bolster their own greedy needs.
Reminds me of cases where legitimate goods are destroyed in the search for counterfeits, even though the goods themselves were not illegal, these inspectors basically have the belief they can ruin any legitimate package as long as they had "good faith".
It seems like a basic right and wrong situation but once you realize they only enforce certain people's agendas, it's not about any kind of safety or communal good.
I can't call the TSA up and have their inspectors look for things that go against my businesses interests. I can't ask for even basic transparency information about how a bank works, even as I am forced to use one. Where do I get to register my interests to get protected like this?
I planned to write something amazing, how do I make sure no one else can pick up a pen and accidentally write anything that I might not like as they are doing with agriculture and counterfeit purses at the border?
All these rules are fucking stupid. Special interests masquerading as right and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't use anything to transfer assets that they can't monitor?
You can use cash.
they only enforce certain people's agendas,
The agenda are the recommendations of OECD. Bearer shares were banned from UK. The world has a problem with the corrupt affluent moving offshore fortunes without a registry of who owns what.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really at this point just against the entire idea of these idiotic money laundering laws. We can't use anything to transfer assets that they can't monitor? Seriously?
I don't get why you're surprised. You being surprised makes literally no sense. It's like you've been living under a rock your whole life. Governments have always tended to want to collect more and more data as it becomes technically possible. And ever since money laundering has been a thing, governments have tried to eliminate means of money laundering, or if they cannot be eliminated, then they have tried to monitor them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have money laundering laws, and ways for governments to enforce those laws then you get money laundering. Money laundering is great, you don't have to pay taxes and you don't have to worry about the government tracking your illegal activities. It's like not having TSA officers at the airport in a financial sense.
If government doesn't get taxes, then you don't get government benefits, like roads, national security, space projects and stuff like that.
Re: Whole idea is stupid. (Score:2)
Nice try but most taxes are towards interest on money "loaned" back to us from the Fed. A private company with private shareholders that acts like part of the government.
Most taxes are to them. They never go to schools (state tax / lottery sales pay that) like you think.
Also if you use cash as you say, they will confiscate that so you indeed must use banks which arent transparent either.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/d... [jsiegel.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really at this point just against the entire idea of these idiotic money laundering laws. We can't use anything to transfer assets that they can't monitor? Seriously?
Erm... For what reason do you not want them to be able to see your transaction?
The money laundering laws are in place because people abuse systems to avoid paying tax or to erm... launder money from criminal enterprises.
I can still buy almost anything I want in the UK, unobtrusively. cars, houses, prostitutes, even illegal things like drugs in non trafficable quantities or unlicensed gambling. The govt really doesn't give a shit as long as you aren't evading tax or taking the piss.
Seeing as the re
At $1.7 trillion (Score:2)
I don't think the hammer's going to come down but rather it'll slowly be regulated out of existence. Mind you, not intentionally or out of malice. Goldman Sach's was eyeing crypto as a money maker. The Big Boys aren't worried about competition (they're big enough they can manipulate an unregulated market like crypto with easy). What's happening here is that the governments are worried that real players are going to get
Re: (Score:2)
You understand crypto is global right? And it's run globally by decentralized computers and miners.
Everyone understands that there's no centralized control implied by cryptocurrency, although some have some anyway.
This means I can take instant payment and send/ship something anywhere whether it's hardware or software goods.
Not if you're taking BTC. That takes an average of ten minutes. You can get a promise to deliver BTC instantly though, no doubt.
This is only going to grow and get bigger.
What's grown it so far is not predominantly people using it for everyday commerce, as it's not really good for that because of its design. It's people using it for money laundering, and for illicit purchase they can't otherwise make. If governments insert themselves in
Yeah, there is a central control system (Score:3)
See, the mining pools can get together and do a 51% attack any time they want. They just didn't have a reason... until the exchanges entered the picture.
Miners make their money mining. Seems simple enough, but the trouble is after you mine the currency what do you do with it? You can sell it to individuals, but that's high risk. Valve saw a 50% fraud rate, and I see no reason why the miners couldn't expect similar rates,
Re: (Score:2)
>You can sell it to individuals, but that's high risk. Valve saw a 50% fraud rate, and I see no reason why the miners couldn't expect similar rates
Source? It's also unlikely the bitcoin itself was fraudulent, but related to some variant of a scam that would have over-wise demanded payment in steam gift cards.
The whole exchange thing breaks most of the crypto-currency advantage anyways
You crypto bros always ask for a source (Score:2)
For the record I didn't figure this out on my own. I'm not nearly that clever. It was talked about in one
Re: (Score:1)
This means I can take instant payment and send/ship something anywhere whether it's hardware or software goods.
As a seller, cryptocurrency is great. No need to worry about pesky chargebacks or hell, even bothering to ship a genuine product - you can source all your inventory from Wish.com and kindly tell buyers "too bad" when they're inevitably displeased.
It is, however, for that exact reason why no one should be using cryptocurrency on the buying side of a shipped goods transaction. You are highly likely to be scammed, and have no means of recovering your funds. Yes, you could use some form of escrow service, bu
now a currency and not an asset? (Score:1)
>"Crypto ATMs offering cryptoasset exchange services in the UK must be registered with us and comply with UK Money Laundering Regulations,"
If that's the case does that mean Crypto is now a currency and not an asset?
Re: (Score:2)
No, just that one side of the equation is currency so the whole chain needs to comply with AML requirements.
Re: now a currency and not an asset? (Score:2)
There machines exchange "foreign" assets into local tender which is the very heart of anti-money laundering laws. You may not like nanny having control over who when why how you send money to others, but it's a key linchpin of reducing the liquidity of corruption, and the proceeds of crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
It means if you're claiming to offer a good or service for money that you have to be able to provide records sufficient to combat money laundering.
I work for a private school. We are required to declare all transactions over a certain amount and any cash transaction MUST have the person given it identified to us.
So if you try to pay your school fees with a "friend's" card, or if an anonymous donor drops 10k to us as a registered charity (yes, most private schools are registered as charities), we have
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling machines in the UK. (Score:2)
Because of course these would be popular with the very gambling focused UK public :)
Bitcoins aren't worth anything (Score:2)
They're just free speech. I blast out some long stream of one's and zero's and someone else replies with some more one's and zero's. We're under no obligation to honor this as a monetary transaction. And most governments aren't about to step in an legitimize it as a currency, quite the opposite really.
P.S. every one who replies to this thread owes me a nickel. Not that anyone can enforce that.
Re: Bitcoins aren't worth anything (Score:2)
Yep, it also reminds me of a backdoor to then ban speech. If Bitcoin is speech but can be banned because that speech implies a monetary transaction, then can I go after everyday cuss words if I simply sign a publicly-available contract which says I have to give one 100th of a cent every time someone cusses and technically now that is just as monetary as Bitcoin ones and zeros.
I guess I better be quiet or I'll give some evil lawyer a bad idea.
Will they tell us what ice cream we can eat next? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do, in fact, "tell you what ice cream you can eat". Just like the the laws to protect us against criminal money-laundering and tax evasion don't allow for Bitcoin ATMs without following the regulations, they have laws that protect consumers that say you can't sell ice cream to people unless you follow the regulations and have factory inspections etc.
No one complains about those laws except people who want to cut corners and sell illegal, unsafe ice cream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean really, who wants safe food, amIright?
And who wants their Bitcoin ATM to be vetted for even a modicum of assurance that it isn't easily hacked and is stealing your coins?
Wimps.
I don't even know why they make medical doctors go to University and study medicine, I mean, why bother? That's just fleecing them!
Re: (Score:2)
Also gov is fueled by the tax money they lift out of our pockets.
Food is safe because companies work to keep it safe.
Companies are not advertising how safe their food is because people care about other things: price and taste.
Just another vending machine (Score:2)
Did the editor read the article? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of both. "[All current] Bitcoin ATMs declared illegal in the UK" is correct - no-one is currently registered to provide this service, so anyone doing so is breaking the law. "Bitcoin ATMs declared [always] illegal in the UK" is not correct. Unfortunately headlines lose some precision by being kept short.