6 ms·
Why is it illegal to operate money transfer? Why founders are responsible for the crimes committed by its users? Are they guilty because the business was "unlic
by ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
Why is it illegal to operate money transfer? Why founders are responsible for the crimes committed by its users? Are they guilty because the business was "unlicensed" or did they specifically promoted crime in some way?
- conover 11y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/liberty-reserve-operators-accused-of-money-laundering.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/liberty-reserve-o... More details about the case when the charges were announced a couple of years ago.
- Spooky23 11y agoLicensure requires compliance with various laws. Liberty Reserve was structured to not comply with any of those laws or regulations. It's like anything else. If you operating a nightclub, and there's a crowd of people selling meth in the bathroom all night, you're facilitating a crime.
- sneak 11y agoCrimes require victims.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chipperyman573 11y ago1) No[0] 2) Usually money laundering means the money was obtained illegitimately. That money had to come from SOMEWHERE, and someone was probably harmed in the taking of it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
- donatj 11y agoMore often than not the only victims are victims because of the government actions. Violence triggered purely by its prohibitions or previous actions.
- dragonwriter 11y agoCrimes require violation of criminal law, which may or may not involve a victim (the legally offended party in a crime isn't the victim, if any, but the State; that's a pretty central distinction between crimes and torts.)
- donatj 11y agoDepends on your definition of crime. From a legal sense, you are correct but from a moral human sense, the original poster is correct. A crime that hurts no one is not a crime.
- gruez 11y ago>but from a moral human sense, the original poster is correct. A crime that hurts no one is not a crime. according to whom?
- gnaritas 11y agoNo they don't; but they should.
- MCRed 11y agoThis is the distinction between a crime and something that is illegal. On HN people rarely make the distinction because they think something being illegal makes it a crime. Illegal means it violates a law. A crime is something that actually harms someone. Gay marriage may have been illegal, but it was never a crime, for example. Alas, these days the USA is a very authoritarian culture and the idea that there might be US laws that are themselves crimes to enforce seems alien. But logically and morally it is the case.
- bitwize 11y agoNo. "Crime" is a legal concept. A crime at law is something for which the state is authorized to punish you. If you do something the law says is punishable by the state, irrespective of if you harmed anyone, you have committed a crime. If you plot to rob a bank, even if you do not go through with it and no one is harmed by your deeds, you can be convicted of conspiracy and jailed.
- gnaritas 11y ago> This is the distinction between a crime and something that is illegal. You're language is too loose to be making such distinctions. Crimes have a legal meaning so you can't just use the word crime in its moral sense only without being specific. >On HN people rarely make the distinction because they think something being illegal makes it a crime. HN isn't that dumb. > Gay marriage may have been illegal, but it was never a crime, for example. In the sense you're using the word crime (i.e. moral) you're absolutely wrong, it was a moral crime and gay people were the victims of said oppression.
- joshmaker 11y agoIdentity theft and credit card fraud are victimless crimes?
- codedokode 11y agoStealing CC is bad thing. But why punish LR for this and not IT professionals who stole them? Or Visa who still cannot make secure payment system? Or Microsoft who cannot make secure operating system?
- mikeyouse 11y agoMens rea?
- xenophonf 11y agoConspiracy or facilitation are criminal acts because they're part of larger criminal acts (murder, fraud, etc.). From what I've read, LR knew that the monies passed through it were the result of crimes, and they knowingly structured their business so as to make it easier for customers who committed financial crimes to launder those monies. PayPal, Visa, and Microsoft do not knowingly structure their businesses or products around the facilitation of crimes, nor do they knowingly support criminal activities. Crimes happen in spite of their respective businesses, not because of them.
- Spooky23 11y ago10,000 years of history disagrees with you.
- gamblor956 11y agoIt's not illegal to operate a money transfer business. Paypal, Venmo, Stripe, Square, etc. are all money transfer businesses. However, in the US it is illegal to operate a money transfer business without getting the proper licenses and registrations at the federal, state, and local levels. It's even more illegal to operate a money transfer business that's being used for laundering, know or be told of these laundering uses, and then not do anything about it.
- hackerboos 11y agoLR was based in Costa Rica.
- bdcravens 11y agoNeed to be licensed as an MSB is based on where your customers are located, not your business.
- MCRed 11y agoUS Law does not apply to Costa Rica-- it's outside their jurisdiction. That's one of the fundamental problems here. The US could pass a law that Sainsburies (a UK grocery store, with no US locations) has to employ a jazz band at every one of their stores for 3 hours every friday afternoon... but it doesn't matter, because the US does not have jurisdiction over the UK. Even if a US citizen goes and visits and stops by a sainsbury and is upset at the lack of a jazz band.
- tacon 11y agoManuel Noriega wholeheartedly agrees with your interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
- shitgoose 11y agofrom what i understand, they were nailed for providing services to americans (citizens and corporations), and that falls under uncle sam's jurisdiction.
- dogma1138 11y agoYou can't operate MSB these days without complying with regulations regardless of where you operate from. Laws for MSB's anywhere require them to comply with legislation based on where their costumers are originated. When you move money from your US account to your friends in the UK through say PayPal; PayPal has to comply with the regulations in both the US and the UK. Amongst those things the MSB also needs to ensure that they do their due diligence to ensure that they do not provide a service to launder money or facilitate other illegal activities this often includes running background and credit checks on the costumers, providing notifications of transfers to the authorities, checking their costumer base against a list of known criminal organizations and suspect individuals, and in general even required to report any set of transactions which fit a certain pattern. LR (just like say Megaupload with it's "reversed" payment model) was designed to circumvent all of this intentionally while there might be some legitimate use for it it's primary use was to transfer funds and exchange currency in an unregulated manner which makes it attractive to only a certain type of individuals which seek that intentionally, anyone else would not want to use it using an unlicensed MSB is a sure way of getting your funds frozen and putting you under investigation. I don't even understand how people can support them, even if they did not do so intentionally they've put their entire costumer base under a microscope if people used this service thinking it was a legitimate MSB they were defrauded. Money laundering and tax evasion is tricky, many laws in many countries are often structured in such manner that the accused has to prove that those funds were acquired legitimately and that all taxes were paid as due. Even if LB did this out of sheer stupidity (which obviously they didn't) they deserve to get their asses handed out to them just for putting every person who ever used them at risk of going to jail or getting in debt due to financial irregularities.