3 ms·

> prosecute whoever shot it. Because the law against murder was broken. > and the police can confiscate the gun and the bullets Says who? They can only do th

> prosecute whoever shot it. Because the law against murder was broken. > and the police can confiscate the gun and the bullets Says who? They can only do this the law provides this mechanism. If there isn't, the gun remains the property of the owner (even if the owner is now a convicted murderer). > but even then the government could claim to regulate an access to it - just as it could, for example, restrict access to an erupting volcano if it wanted They could, if Congress has passed a law giving the government this regulatory power. I get that people might feel "autonomous" is a cop-out, but legally, the argument is narrow. It isn't about people getting a way with crime. The crypto currency community would certainly be opposed to Tornado Cash relayers facing money laundering charges as well, but here they are merely saying that the sanctions authority does not extend to the sanctioning of things. And well, it either does or it doesn't. If Iran secretly plants a cherry tree in Central Park, is OFAC allowed to sanction the cherry tree, and prevent people from eating the cherries? They are arguing no, because OFAC has no authority to sanction trees.

smsm42 4y ago
> the sanctions authority does not extend to the sanctioning of things That's the semantic game. If they have authority to limit financial transactions by people, then they have authority to limit financial transactions by people facilitated by things. And things can not (at least not yet, not until general AI exists and recognized as independent legal entity) initiate transactions by itself - somebody caused them to do that, by setting off chain of events that resulted in that transaction. That person can be prosecuted if the transaction is illegal. > If Iran secretly plants a cherry tree in Central Park, is OFAC allowed to sanction the cherry tree What you mean by "sanction the cherry tree"? If people use this tree to, say, exchange money (OFAC does not regulate eating, AFAIK) - for example, by hanging sacks with money on its branches - then yes, OFAC would be able to prohibit this way of transferring money to Iran as well as any other way of doing it. Why not? > They are arguing no, because OFAC has no authority to sanction trees. It has authority to sanction financial transactions. The means by which they are executed is secondary - it's be stupid for Congress to give them authority to regulate transactions made in one way, but ignore same transactions with same effect made in slightly different way. I don't think anybody would have any luck convincing the courts that was the lawmakers' intent.
- miracle2k 4y ago
  You seem uninterested in the details of how legislation is crafted to balance competing interests and values, and in that way both empower but also restrict regularity bodies. Congress did not say to Treasury "you can no 'limit financial transactions by people', good luck". If OFAC were to announce that they want to limit the number of bank transactions a person can do to 5 per day (say they are unable to investigate the larger volume), they would be exceeding their authority. Another example, the tool that OFAC has here that we are talking about is their designation power, and the restrictions that follow such a designation are partly set in the statute defined by Congress, not something that OFAC has the power to make up. > Then yes, OFAC would be able to prohibit this way of transferring money to Iran as well as any other way of doing it. Why not? Transactions with the target entities ("Iran") are already restricted, whether through a crypto transfer or a tree-branch exchange. This is because OFAC has used its proper powers to designate those targets. The question at hand in this hypothetical is whether OFAC has the power /to designate the tree/ itself additionally, thus making it illegal for you to hang a sack of money there, regardless if you are transacting with Iran or just waiting for your cousin to pick it up. Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"?
  - smsm42 4y ago
    > Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"? Probably not because "Hawala system" is not an entity that can be defined - it's like banning "cryptocurrencies" in general. OFAC wouldn't be able to do that - because it's not a specific definable entity. Designating a specific hawaladar would be possible for them (though likely not very effective).

smsm42 4y ago

> the sanctions authority does not extend to the sanctioning of things That's the semantic game. If they have authority to limit financial transactions by people, then they have authority to limit financial transactions by people facilitated by things. And things can not (at least not yet, not until general AI exists and recognized as independent legal entity) initiate transactions by itself - somebody caused them to do that, by setting off chain of events that resulted in that transaction. That person can be prosecuted if the transaction is illegal. > If Iran secretly plants a cherry tree in Central Park, is OFAC allowed to sanction the cherry tree What you mean by "sanction the cherry tree"? If people use this tree to, say, exchange money (OFAC does not regulate eating, AFAIK) - for example, by hanging sacks with money on its branches - then yes, OFAC would be able to prohibit this way of transferring money to Iran as well as any other way of doing it. Why not? > They are arguing no, because OFAC has no authority to sanction trees. It has authority to sanction financial transactions. The means by which they are executed is secondary - it's be stupid for Congress to give them authority to regulate transactions made in one way, but ignore same transactions with same effect made in slightly different way. I don't think anybody would have any luck convincing the courts that was the lawmakers' intent.

miracle2k 4y ago
You seem uninterested in the details of how legislation is crafted to balance competing interests and values, and in that way both empower but also restrict regularity bodies. Congress did not say to Treasury "you can no 'limit financial transactions by people', good luck". If OFAC were to announce that they want to limit the number of bank transactions a person can do to 5 per day (say they are unable to investigate the larger volume), they would be exceeding their authority. Another example, the tool that OFAC has here that we are talking about is their designation power, and the restrictions that follow such a designation are partly set in the statute defined by Congress, not something that OFAC has the power to make up. > Then yes, OFAC would be able to prohibit this way of transferring money to Iran as well as any other way of doing it. Why not? Transactions with the target entities ("Iran") are already restricted, whether through a crypto transfer or a tree-branch exchange. This is because OFAC has used its proper powers to designate those targets. The question at hand in this hypothetical is whether OFAC has the power /to designate the tree/ itself additionally, thus making it illegal for you to hang a sack of money there, regardless if you are transacting with Iran or just waiting for your cousin to pick it up. Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"?
- smsm42 4y ago
  > Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"? Probably not because "Hawala system" is not an entity that can be defined - it's like banning "cryptocurrencies" in general. OFAC wouldn't be able to do that - because it's not a specific definable entity. Designating a specific hawaladar would be possible for them (though likely not very effective).