2 ms·

> 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 thi

> 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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]