US Senators Warren, Marshall Introduce Digital Assets Anti-Money Laundering Bill 68
U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) are introducing a bill to crack down on money laundering and financing of terrorists and rogue nations [PDF] via cryptocurrency. From a report:
If it becomes law, the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act will bring know-your-customer (KYC) rules to crypto participants such as wallet providers and miners and prohibit financial institutions from transacting with digital asset mixers, which are tools designed to obscure the origin of funds. The act would also allow the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to implement a proposed rule requiring institutions to report certain transactions involving unhosted wallets -- wallets where the user has complete control over the contents rather than relying on an exchange or other third party.
Criminals will just use hacked accounts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably a good idea, as the pretense of authority and regulation is what got us into this problem in the first place.
Crypto only really works if people take personal responsibility for their assets - that was the fucking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I hope you don't expect the government to protect your funds nor back up their value. After all, you didn't want the regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't expect the government to protect your funds nor back up their value.
The purpose of the proposed regulation is not to protect funds or back up value.
Re: (Score:2)
OH Geez....THANK YOU.
Now....I can't un-see this in my imagination now....ugh!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. I'm waiting for a blonde and a brunette AOC.
Re: (Score:1)
But I donâ(TM)t see that she has benighted from FTX or any other financial fraud. She is a politician. When she was trying to regulate the payday loan industry, all she did limit their acres to the military. Which makes sense as the military is likely less intelligent, on average, than the average American and
Re: Stop giving this LIAR and a drain on society P (Score:2)
AC posting claims with no evidence with an obvious grievance? Say it ain't so.
Like her or not Warren was a crypto skeptic back to 2019 or earlier and was telling the SEC chair over a year ago about regulating the industry.
Maybe you just have a mommy fetish AC.
Death of crypto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No it won't, but it will slow it. The government can try to pass all the laws it wants but they can't stop the fundamental right for citizens to use private currency.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Death of crypto (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an enormous difference between what you said, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects", which suggests people have a right to be secure in all cases.
The 4th amendment says (note the use of the comma) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
the 4th amendment has qualifiers, not a blanket immunity from seizure. And notably the Constitution also gives the legislature power to define what probable cause is subject to challenge via the judicial branch.
You can't just make up your own interpretation of the Constitution or choose which words you want to follow in a sentence and which ones you don't want to.
Re:Death of crypto (Score:4, Informative)
I already addressed the 4th amendment above, but no it does not violate the 4th amendment because the legislature can pass a law defining what constitutes seizure under a warrant, which they are given the power to do so.
The 10th amendment reserves any powers not enumerated in the Constitution "to the States respectively, or to the people." Note States first, not people, so not only are you wrong, but you really should pay attention as it's not an accident why the 10th says "to the States" before it says the people. But given that crypto exchanges and operations are done almost entirely across state boundaries, then the Interstate Commerce Clause DOES give Congress the right to pass this law.
But hey, if you believe differently, go right ahead. Take this law and challenge it and take it to the Supreme Court. I'm sure they'll accept your legal interpretation. Oh wait, no they won't, the courts do consider crypto to fall under interstate commerce. (see United States v Constanzo [postschell.com] for example).
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the desire to hide from someone calling out your misinterpretation of the facts with ad hominem attacks, but unfortunately for that to work the ad hominem attacks have to be factual.
"Internet rando" - about the only fact in your statement.
"trying to make a plea to authority fallacy claim" - untrue. I pointed to that case because the logic it uses is the logic of all courts, that any business conducted over the
Re: (Score:2)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Also, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If those doesn't ring a bell right away, take a look at the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, the 10th does not specify how to identify the rights it protects, and judges have been skittish to "invent" rights. From their point of view, that's a problem best left to the legislature, and this makes sense because people have conflicting and shifting ideas of what a right is.
Re: (Score:3)
judges have been skittish to "invent" rights.
Really? Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Roe v. Wade are a few rather famous counterexamples that come to mind. The fact that Roe v. Wade was overturned by our current very interesting Supreme Court doesn't negate the fact that the Court "invented" the right they decided to destroy.
The Tenth Amendment doesn't need to define rights. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal government, not the rights of the people. Some of t
Re: (Score:3)
Only the government has the only right to issue Legal Tender which is allowed for public use per Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitutional:
However, citizens have the ri
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to try opening a history book sometime because you are completely ignorant of history:
1. Company Scrip [wikipedia.org]. Why did it take till 1938 for it to become illegal?
2. Private Bank Notes [wikipedia.org]. Why did this take till to 1863 to end?
If private currency was "illegal" NONE of those above would have lasted as long as they did. They would have immediately been struck down as unconstitutional.
Why was this allowed? Because under current law a corporation is a legal person. [wikipedia.org]
Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 of the
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem there much buddy? But since you want to go there and appear to be too fucking stupid to understand the 10th amendment I'll spell it out for you. [wikipedia.org]
Now genius, Q. "Who or what, makes up a state?" And when you are done gett
Re: (Score:2)
You are a complete fucking moron if you think the Constitution granted "I guess people have the right to murder...". Try actually thinking about what you are reading:
1. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which made life a federally protected right:
2. The Crimes Act of 1790 [wikipedia.org] further codified exclusive federal jurisdiction with "Crimes against persons" in sections 3 and 7.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 1, Section 8,
"The Congress shall have Power To [list irrelevant to your question omitted"
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ....
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
And there is some more, but the short version is the Federal Government controls the currency.
Also
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but that is true of anything on a speculative market, including currency.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fundamental right"? Where do you take that? Because the only right you have in that space that is in any way "fundamental" is bartering. If you want to use a currency, you become part of a larger scheme and it is very much not only between you and the other person anymore. Same if you want the advantages of something called "citizenship". (Try being stateless sometime, it does really, really, really suck...)
Re: (Score:2)
...they can't stop the fundamental right for citizens to use private currency.
True, but neither the government nor you can stop the equally fundamental right to tell you to that I won't accept your tulip bulbs, magic string of ones and zeros, or colored beads.
Legal Tender or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since Cryptos biggest strength is lack of accountability, this will effectively end the point of it.
FTFY :D
Doing anything smart or productive in Congress is DOA anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Crypto's biggest strength is lack of central control and authority not lack of accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the blockchain. Tried tracking Monero users lately?
Re:Death of crypto (Score:4, Informative)
Cryptocurrency lacks tracking/logging/accounting? Those things are all it is! Take them away and there's nothing left. Without the logging, how do you know what address owns what?
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, crypto is highly traceable [science.org].
That you were voted to a 4 is a clear indicator of how little Slashdot editors really understand how crypto / blockchain works. This used to be a site that had a better, more educated population of readers for technology and related issues. It used to be a great source to learn new things. Lately, it's just been disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
You remind me of people who used to say that the War of Drugs would be the end of addiction.
#nothingofvaluewaslost
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
That said, I understand Jihad to mean a struggle, particularly in respect to maintaining ones adherence to Islam under a barrage of social and cultural adversity.
get caught laundering money, we're not going to wh (Score:2)
We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison.
Unlikely to pass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a majority of members of congress that have no interest in regulating the flow of money through "crypto participants". That's how a lot of their campaign financing moves into the US, err rather, that's how their totally domestic donors obscure the funding sources.
Some people believe that this is the reason Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested before he could testify before Congress and be asked what he received in exchange for his campaign contributions. I suppose that's possible, but I don't see how it makes much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it isn't illegal to receive campaign contributions. "Person in finance contributes to election campaign" isn't news. "Person in finance didn't donate to a political party" - that would a an interesting headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Not illegal to accept campaign contributions, but illegal to accept a bribe. If B-K testified that there was a qud pro quo agreement, that could be damaging. However, he's not accused of bribing members of Congress; such testimony would be self incriminating and make his bad situationmuch worse, and that is what makes the whole idea stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. Congresscritters may act like it but they aren't actually stupid. Their finances are made in USD. Crypto is largely useless to them, not the least of which is they would prefer there not being a public record of every transaction that flows funds their way.
Great, another redundant law (Score:3, Insightful)
Money Laundering is already illegal, regardless of whether Crypto is used.
What this bill should be called is the "Dragnet for the Taxation of Digital Assets"
privacy coins (Score:2)
On coinmarketcap, Monero price has not been terribly affected by this bill. (12/14/22 3:48 set)
And yet if you read the short document it will functionally delist Monero, Zcash, Dash etc. from every US exchange.
These tokens should be collapsing right now.
Maybe they should also (Score:2)
Destined to die (Score:2)
They probably could have snuck this kind of legislation into an omnibus spending package or something like the American Rescue Plan [wkm-law.com]. On its own it'll probably die.
It should be obvious to most observers that this bill isn't intended to stop money laundering. It's intended to stop everyone else.
Is this finally happening? (Score:2)
U.S. Senators [...] and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) are introducing a bill [...]
Is this the "Marshall Law" that people keep talking [cnbc.com] about [rollingstone.com]?
Typical career politcians (Score:2)
Announce a "bold new plan" to address something (probably in a way some campaign backer wants...remember, there are millions to trillions of dollars hanging on every thing Washington DC does) and then try to garner support by saying either it's to "fight terrorism" or "protect the children".
These things RARELY actually stop any terrorism or protect any children, but they usually add burdens to ordinary people who are not sending bribes, err, "campaign contribution" checks to Washington DC. These things also
I am all against blockchain... (Score:2)
Rats. (Score:2)