4 ms·
Someone getting a loan and falsifying all the documents is the one facing prosecution, not the bank. All seems to be a bit upside down here, given the prevalenc
by ShorsHammer 7y ago
Someone getting a loan and falsifying all the documents is the one facing prosecution, not the bank. All seems to be a bit upside down here, given the prevalence of mortgage fraud and who ends up in court.
As for remote employees living in NY I guess that probably does constitute operating there, then again I'm no lawyer with a knack for arguing semantics. Does this count for someone living in an Brooklyn airbnb for a month and working from their laptop?
- FireBeyond 7y agoNot quite that simple. If you're not licensed as a business to trade in a state, and you accept a customer in that state, then you're on the hook (yes, if customer falsifies documents, then that's on them). Tether/Bitfinex didn't always forbid NY customers, and didn't always forbid US customers, and the OAG's allegation is that they continue to knowingly serve NY customers (the US prohibition is a business decision, not a regulator). KYC/AML says that you must make a good faith effort to verify documentation/ID, etc. The contention is more that they're doing so "under the radar". Just like "friends of Bitfinex" - employees/friends who have agreed to use their personal bank accounts to enable wire transfers on Bitfinex's behalf (I mean, WTF...).