5 ms·

Is it illegal for me to sell gas to gang bangers in the ghetto? When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? Everyone knows there are customers in

Is it illegal for me to sell gas to gang bangers in the ghetto? When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? Everyone knows there are customers in Russia, and in Camden NJ, there for crime. You know with 100% certainty when you run a gas station in a bad part of town you directly are selling to aid people to commit felonies. Hell even the road crews know when they build the interstate, they are there to amongst other things to build the road that facilitates money laundering (and indeed they take no action to stop it).

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals Yes. At a minimum, it's aiding and abetting [1]. What's going on here looks like terrorist financing and willful sanctions evasion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting#cite_note-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting#cite_note-...
- notch898a 4y ago
  In that case they need to prosecute all the road crews and gas stations. Those people know with certainty they are providing for criminals, and they do nothing to stop it.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > they need to prosecute all the road crews and gas stations If you don't see the difference between knowingly helping a designated terrorist organization launder money (specific and known criminal and crime) and operating an honest business in a high-crime neighborhood (statistical likelihood of aiding a criminal), you shouldn't be making business decisions or running a financial services firm. It's an obvious distinction, one that a roomful of people with basic legal instruction will agree on 99% of the time, except for the one with a profit incentive to argue the opposite.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      The line gets really blurry when you see someone buying large quantities of legal products that can be compounded into other products like meth. At what point are you aiding by selling lye. That's the case here.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > line gets really blurry when you see someone buying large quantities of legal products that can be compounded into other products like meth. At what point are you aiding by selling lye. That's the case here. I fully agree on the line, in general, being fuzzy. It's not here. Multiple texts describe Binance helping Hamas circumvent money-laundering flags by moving small amounts, helping a Chicago-based trader hide his U.S. origin, et cetera. If someone buys a bunch of lye, the line is blurry. If they walk in hitting a meth pipe, ask you in which aisle are the meth supplies, and when they hand you their credit card, you advise them to pay in cash so you don't have to draw up a receipt, the line isn't blurry so much as very far away.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        notch898a 4y ago
        >Multiple texts describe Binance helping Hamas circumvent money-laundering flags by moving small amounts I was unable to find these. The only hamas bit I found in the indictment was Binance describing generally how Hamas launder in low value quantas like $600. Not texts showing they identified specific hamas accounts and developed individualized plans to assist them.
        bolanyo 4y ago
        Yes, the line about "after receiving information about 'HAMAS' transactions" seems deliberately intended to withhold the actual content of the conversation about Hamas.
      - 4y ago
  - illiarian 4y ago
    If you sell knives, and a criminal walks in, buys a knife, and then kills someone, you are not guilty. If you know the criminal, you sell that criminal knives, and after police come looking you tell the criminal, you are at the very least complicit.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      You are missing the point. AML laws, which apply to crypto exchanges, are not like that at all. It's not if you know. It's more like if you have the slightest suspicion, e.g. the guy who bought the knife was black and had baggie pants or had a neck tattoo. Or the guy has an Arabic name and posted a 9/11 meme on Twitter.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      If I walk up to the road crew and tell them the local mob is going to be driving drugs across it the day after completion, are they then complicit when they keep going?
      - notahacker 4y ago
        If the road crew discuss tipping the mob off that they're being watched and lying to the police about the date the road is scheduled to be opened to give the mob a window of opportunity, quite possibly
  - wbl 4y ago
    No they don't. The statutes for financial institutions are different and aiding and abetting requires particularized knowledge that we recognize gas stations just don't have.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  Ok, what about Israel?
  - vkou 4y ago
    While I enjoy pointing out the many, many problems[1] with the current state of Israel, I don't think CZ and Binance were banking for 'terrorist' groups out of a political principle. And since they aren't doing out any particular political principle, it seems that they were just as happy to support 'bad' terrorist groups as they were 'good' terrorist groups. It's one thing if you're supporting violence because you legitimately believe that its cause is just. We do that all the time. It's another when you're supporting any violent group that will pay you. One makes you an idealist that may, or may not be on the right side of morality and history. The other simply makes you a criminal. [1] Understatement of the century, but what those problems are isn't at all relevant to this thread.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    How do you expect to jail an entire state? I'm sure you heard about Russian receiving sanctions from the US but often when you look into the details it's restrictions against specific named Russian nationals. If you can name specific Isrealies that are involved in terrorism then you might be able to get sanctions against them but to just blanketly claim the whole country is guilty of an unspecified sanctionable offense isn't going to get you anywhere.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Foreign states are generally not subject to US criminal law.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Name one gas station that ever got charged for selling gas to a criminal.
  - acdha 4y ago
    In your experience, how often do criminals come in and tell the guy behind the counter that they need gas to commit a crime? Be specific. That’s the difference: if you are aware that they’re making the transaction to further criminal activity, then you need to worry. You will find gas station owners who were charged: they’re the ones who helped fence stolen property or launder money.
    - bolanyo 4y ago
      But you are arguing, if you run a gas station, and you see a couple of dudes in a car hanging out on the opposite corner all day, and you come to believe that they are selling drugs out of their car, when they come to you to buy gas you have to refuse on the basis that you would be aiding and abetting and subject to prosecution? Is that actually what you believe?
      - acdha 4y ago
        A couple of guys sitting around does not prove a crime and even if you had strong suspicion, you’re not a cop and letting them buy gas doesn’t materially support the criminal activity – the amounts are small and it’s the same service you offer everyone. If you’ll note that’s why I used examples which have lead to criminal charges where someone did something unusual which they knew supported criminal activity. This is why anti-money laundering laws exist in the first place. Criminals would otherwise seek out a bank which doesn’t ask questions and the bankers would be hard to charge unless they were idiots and wrote something like “They are here for crime”. AML removes the ability not to ask or report certain types of activities, which is much easier to prosecute than e.g. proving that a banker should have known there was no legal way for a small Italian restaurant to be so profitable.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
k2enemy 4y ago
> When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? If only there were an entire profession and legal system that has been asking and answering questions like this for hundreds of years. I know programmers want to believe otherwise, but common law can't be boiled down to single line "if statements."
- notch898a 4y ago
  Common law, like all law, boils down to if the state wants to fuck you they will find a way. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies and double speak along the way.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    I think there are a lot of examples of people the state wants to get but can't. And in many cases, common law is what saves said targets. Newer legislation that overrides common law like the Patriot Act or DMCA is what ends up being used more frequently to "get" people.
  - badrequest 4y ago
    It doesn't seem like you're very good at it.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Perhaps not, but I've heard the best way to get better at something is to practice.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I know programmers want to believe otherwise, but common law can’t be boiled down to single line “if statements.” It often can, but programmers often don’t like that, either, because instead of hinging purely on acts that enable simple hacks, it often hinges on things like knowledge and intent.
favsq 4y ago
[flagged]
meepmorp 4y ago
Are you actually trying to equate selling gas at a public store with being a knowing accomplice to money laundering?
function_seven 4y ago
> When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? When you know that the transaction you're part of is directly involved in their crimes. It's one thing to know, statistically, the some portion of your customers are doing crimes. It's an entirely different thing to know that this customer is doing that crime with your assistance.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Honest question and not trying to disagree with you here. What are the specific customers that Binance had individualized knowledge were assisting in committing crime? I'm curious to see the sources.
  - qorrect 4y ago
    Same question. I see nothing in there that says they knew of their actual crimes, only that they might be criminals.
    - Twirrim 4y ago
      Their own phrasing matters, and clearly states otherwise. This is what makes these chats damning. It means that they knew they had criminals using their platform, how they were using it, and that they, as a deliberate choice, chose not to do anything. > Binance MLRO agreed that "we see the bad, but we close 2 eyes." You're not allowed to see illegal things happening with your service and turn a blind eye. It goes beyond that though. https://twitter.com/web3isgreat/status/1640380291817635843/photo/1 https://twitter.com/web3isgreat/status/1640380291817635843/p... Having had an account that was identified as involved in illegal activity, leadership told them to make a new account. Not go away, and at least make a half-assed attempt at a ban. Make a new untainted account and be a bit more careful with your transfers, and even "here's some things to be a bit more careful about". If they had actively taken steps to ban the user, even if the user evaded the ban they could make an argument that they had done due diligence. If there was nothing in the chats, no evidence that they were aware these things were happening, and no evidence that they were encouraging it to still happen, then the government would have a much harder case, but these chats cited seem to make it hook, line and sinker. It shows that they very deliberately chose not to be in compliance with "Know Your Customer" (KYC) regulations, that they knew applied to them by law, knew what the risks were (ignorance is no excuse under the law, but penalties are much higher if you know what you're doing is illegal and still chose to do it), and even actively worked to help customers help them avoid it. If you're going to do crime, writing it down, and keeping that evidence trail is just the absolute dumbest thing you can possibly do.
CPLX 4y ago
The burden shifts when you’re engaging in financial services. So for example you don’t have any real obligation to inquire about source of funds when someone comes into your shack to buy a burger and a shake. If they come into your shack to open a financial account or do any kind of exchanging of financial instruments then you do.
lordnacho 4y ago
Well there's no law saying you have to report a gas sale to a criminal. Just like any other service you might sell to him. Except you know, for services for which there is a law...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 4y ago
I don't know why you are getting down voted. It's a valid criticism of AML laws. I recently got dozens of up votes for a similar comment in another post. Goes to show certain topics attract different crowds to the comment section.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I prefer to go where everyone hates what I say. If I go somewhere where people agree with me, I start to get worried I'm in an echo chamber.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals Yes. At a minimum, it's aiding and abetting [1]. What's going on here looks like terrorist financing and willful sanctions evasion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting#cite_note-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting#cite_note-...

notch898a 4y ago
In that case they need to prosecute all the road crews and gas stations. Those people know with certainty they are providing for criminals, and they do nothing to stop it.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > they need to prosecute all the road crews and gas stations If you don't see the difference between knowingly helping a designated terrorist organization launder money (specific and known criminal and crime) and operating an honest business in a high-crime neighborhood (statistical likelihood of aiding a criminal), you shouldn't be making business decisions or running a financial services firm. It's an obvious distinction, one that a roomful of people with basic legal instruction will agree on 99% of the time, except for the one with a profit incentive to argue the opposite.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    The line gets really blurry when you see someone buying large quantities of legal products that can be compounded into other products like meth. At what point are you aiding by selling lye. That's the case here.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > line gets really blurry when you see someone buying large quantities of legal products that can be compounded into other products like meth. At what point are you aiding by selling lye. That's the case here. I fully agree on the line, in general, being fuzzy. It's not here. Multiple texts describe Binance helping Hamas circumvent money-laundering flags by moving small amounts, helping a Chicago-based trader hide his U.S. origin, et cetera. If someone buys a bunch of lye, the line is blurry. If they walk in hitting a meth pipe, ask you in which aisle are the meth supplies, and when they hand you their credit card, you advise them to pay in cash so you don't have to draw up a receipt, the line isn't blurry so much as very far away.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - notch898a 4y ago
        >Multiple texts describe Binance helping Hamas circumvent money-laundering flags by moving small amounts I was unable to find these. The only hamas bit I found in the indictment was Binance describing generally how Hamas launder in low value quantas like $600. Not texts showing they identified specific hamas accounts and developed individualized plans to assist them.
        bolanyo 4y ago
        Yes, the line about "after receiving information about 'HAMAS' transactions" seems deliberately intended to withhold the actual content of the conversation about Hamas.
    - 4y ago
- illiarian 4y ago
  If you sell knives, and a criminal walks in, buys a knife, and then kills someone, you are not guilty. If you know the criminal, you sell that criminal knives, and after police come looking you tell the criminal, you are at the very least complicit.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    You are missing the point. AML laws, which apply to crypto exchanges, are not like that at all. It's not if you know. It's more like if you have the slightest suspicion, e.g. the guy who bought the knife was black and had baggie pants or had a neck tattoo. Or the guy has an Arabic name and posted a 9/11 meme on Twitter.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    If I walk up to the road crew and tell them the local mob is going to be driving drugs across it the day after completion, are they then complicit when they keep going?
    - notahacker 4y ago
      If the road crew discuss tipping the mob off that they're being watched and lying to the police about the date the road is scheduled to be opened to give the mob a window of opportunity, quite possibly
- wbl 4y ago
  No they don't. The statutes for financial institutions are different and aiding and abetting requires particularized knowledge that we recognize gas stations just don't have.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Ok, what about Israel?
- vkou 4y ago
  While I enjoy pointing out the many, many problems[1] with the current state of Israel, I don't think CZ and Binance were banking for 'terrorist' groups out of a political principle. And since they aren't doing out any particular political principle, it seems that they were just as happy to support 'bad' terrorist groups as they were 'good' terrorist groups. It's one thing if you're supporting violence because you legitimately believe that its cause is just. We do that all the time. It's another when you're supporting any violent group that will pay you. One makes you an idealist that may, or may not be on the right side of morality and history. The other simply makes you a criminal. [1] Understatement of the century, but what those problems are isn't at all relevant to this thread.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  How do you expect to jail an entire state? I'm sure you heard about Russian receiving sanctions from the US but often when you look into the details it's restrictions against specific named Russian nationals. If you can name specific Isrealies that are involved in terrorism then you might be able to get sanctions against them but to just blanketly claim the whole country is guilty of an unspecified sanctionable offense isn't going to get you anywhere.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Foreign states are generally not subject to US criminal law.
olalonde 4y ago
Name one gas station that ever got charged for selling gas to a criminal.
- acdha 4y ago
  In your experience, how often do criminals come in and tell the guy behind the counter that they need gas to commit a crime? Be specific. That’s the difference: if you are aware that they’re making the transaction to further criminal activity, then you need to worry. You will find gas station owners who were charged: they’re the ones who helped fence stolen property or launder money.
  - bolanyo 4y ago
    But you are arguing, if you run a gas station, and you see a couple of dudes in a car hanging out on the opposite corner all day, and you come to believe that they are selling drugs out of their car, when they come to you to buy gas you have to refuse on the basis that you would be aiding and abetting and subject to prosecution? Is that actually what you believe?
    - acdha 4y ago
      A couple of guys sitting around does not prove a crime and even if you had strong suspicion, you’re not a cop and letting them buy gas doesn’t materially support the criminal activity – the amounts are small and it’s the same service you offer everyone. If you’ll note that’s why I used examples which have lead to criminal charges where someone did something unusual which they knew supported criminal activity. This is why anti-money laundering laws exist in the first place. Criminals would otherwise seek out a bank which doesn’t ask questions and the bankers would be hard to charge unless they were idiots and wrote something like “They are here for crime”. AML removes the ability not to ask or report certain types of activities, which is much easier to prosecute than e.g. proving that a banker should have known there was no legal way for a small Italian restaurant to be so profitable.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

k2enemy 4y ago

> When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? If only there were an entire profession and legal system that has been asking and answering questions like this for hundreds of years. I know programmers want to believe otherwise, but common law can't be boiled down to single line "if statements."

notch898a 4y ago
Common law, like all law, boils down to if the state wants to fuck you they will find a way. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies and double speak along the way.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  I think there are a lot of examples of people the state wants to get but can't. And in many cases, common law is what saves said targets. Newer legislation that overrides common law like the Patriot Act or DMCA is what ends up being used more frequently to "get" people.
- badrequest 4y ago
  It doesn't seem like you're very good at it.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Perhaps not, but I've heard the best way to get better at something is to practice.
bioemerl 4y ago
https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I know programmers want to believe otherwise, but common law can’t be boiled down to single line “if statements.” It often can, but programmers often don’t like that, either, because instead of hinging purely on acts that enable simple hacks, it often hinges on things like knowledge and intent.

favsq 4y ago

[flagged]

meepmorp 4y ago

Are you actually trying to equate selling gas at a public store with being a knowing accomplice to money laundering?

function_seven 4y ago

> When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? When you know that the transaction you're part of is directly involved in their crimes. It's one thing to know, statistically, the some portion of your customers are doing crimes. It's an entirely different thing to know that this customer is doing that crime with your assistance.

notch898a 4y ago
Honest question and not trying to disagree with you here. What are the specific customers that Binance had individualized knowledge were assisting in committing crime? I'm curious to see the sources.
- qorrect 4y ago
  Same question. I see nothing in there that says they knew of their actual crimes, only that they might be criminals.
  - Twirrim 4y ago
    Their own phrasing matters, and clearly states otherwise. This is what makes these chats damning. It means that they knew they had criminals using their platform, how they were using it, and that they, as a deliberate choice, chose not to do anything. > Binance MLRO agreed that "we see the bad, but we close 2 eyes." You're not allowed to see illegal things happening with your service and turn a blind eye. It goes beyond that though. https://twitter.com/web3isgreat/status/1640380291817635843/photo/1 https://twitter.com/web3isgreat/status/1640380291817635843/p... Having had an account that was identified as involved in illegal activity, leadership told them to make a new account. Not go away, and at least make a half-assed attempt at a ban. Make a new untainted account and be a bit more careful with your transfers, and even "here's some things to be a bit more careful about". If they had actively taken steps to ban the user, even if the user evaded the ban they could make an argument that they had done due diligence. If there was nothing in the chats, no evidence that they were aware these things were happening, and no evidence that they were encouraging it to still happen, then the government would have a much harder case, but these chats cited seem to make it hook, line and sinker. It shows that they very deliberately chose not to be in compliance with "Know Your Customer" (KYC) regulations, that they knew applied to them by law, knew what the risks were (ignorance is no excuse under the law, but penalties are much higher if you know what you're doing is illegal and still chose to do it), and even actively worked to help customers help them avoid it. If you're going to do crime, writing it down, and keeping that evidence trail is just the absolute dumbest thing you can possibly do.

CPLX 4y ago

The burden shifts when you’re engaging in financial services. So for example you don’t have any real obligation to inquire about source of funds when someone comes into your shack to buy a burger and a shake. If they come into your shack to open a financial account or do any kind of exchanging of financial instruments then you do.

lordnacho 4y ago

Well there's no law saying you have to report a gas sale to a criminal. Just like any other service you might sell to him. Except you know, for services for which there is a law...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 4y ago

I don't know why you are getting down voted. It's a valid criticism of AML laws. I recently got dozens of up votes for a similar comment in another post. Goes to show certain topics attract different crowds to the comment section.

notch898a 4y ago
I prefer to go where everyone hates what I say. If I go somewhere where people agree with me, I start to get worried I'm in an echo chamber.