4 ms·

There is no compelling evidence they are 'rampant money laundering machines'. Even to prove money laundering happened, you have to prove a crime happened that g

There is no compelling evidence they are 'rampant money laundering machines'. Even to prove money laundering happened, you have to prove a crime happened that generated illicit revenue that was then laundered, in which case prosecuting for the AML violation would be redundant, as the offender could be successfully prosecuted on the root crime. This is why AML laws make much more than money laundering illegal, why in the vast majority of cases of AML law violation, no money laundering was proven to have taken place, and why none of the analyses on the volume of money laundering use this burden of proof when formulating their estimates on the scale of the phenomenon. What you could say is that other venues are less compliant with warrantless surveillance requirements of US financial crime regulators. That is the phenomenon that is actually provably rampant in non-US-regulated crypto exchanges.

qeternity 6y ago
> There is no compelling evidence they are 'rampant money laundering machines'. Reggie Fowler and Crypto Capital were convicted of money laundering for crypto companies just a couple years ago. This was Bitfinex’s bank, which caused big balance sheet problems for iFinex and likely spawned the current era of the Tetheral Reserve. Compelling evidence? The biggest exchanges’ banks are being thrown in jail for laundering. I’m not sure how much clearer it could be.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Being convicted of violating anti-money laundering laws is not proof that they engaged in money laundering. Like I explained, to prove money laundering occurred, you have to prove that money was generated in a criminal enterprise, which would require the party who provided the funds to be convicted in a court of law of some crime that generated the income. In the vast majority of cases where a financial intermediary is convicted of violating an anti-money laundering law, this doesn't happen. It would make discussions more constructive if you read the comment in full before responding to it.

qeternity 6y ago

> There is no compelling evidence they are 'rampant money laundering machines'. Reggie Fowler and Crypto Capital were convicted of money laundering for crypto companies just a couple years ago. This was Bitfinex’s bank, which caused big balance sheet problems for iFinex and likely spawned the current era of the Tetheral Reserve. Compelling evidence? The biggest exchanges’ banks are being thrown in jail for laundering. I’m not sure how much clearer it could be.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
Being convicted of violating anti-money laundering laws is not proof that they engaged in money laundering. Like I explained, to prove money laundering occurred, you have to prove that money was generated in a criminal enterprise, which would require the party who provided the funds to be convicted in a court of law of some crime that generated the income. In the vast majority of cases where a financial intermediary is convicted of violating an anti-money laundering law, this doesn't happen. It would make discussions more constructive if you read the comment in full before responding to it.