5 ms·

how was their business 'in the US'?

by bolanyo 4y ago

boeingUH60 4y ago
You move money for Americans, then you're subject to U.S. compliance and anti-money laundering laws. It is that simple.
- msm_ 4y ago
  I'm a citizen of a small European country. I use quite a few American services. Does this mean they are subject to my country's law? Binance used IP-based locking mechanism (easy to avoid with a VPN). Similarly, I saw US-based websites that blocked access to European customers because of GDPR, and I've circumvented their geolocks using a VPN. Does it mean that I can sue them for not following GDPR now? I'm not trying to argue for Binance here, and I think that US compliance and anti-money laundering laws are reasonable. But I wonder if your position is that "everyone should just follow US law", or is it more nuanced.
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    > I'm a citizen of a small European country. I use quite a few American services. Does this mean they are subject to my country's law? Yes, it does, and most especially if it involves moving funds. If your country decides that the platform broke their laws, they could sue just like the CFTC or even request an arrest and extradition of the alleged perpetrators. But, in reality, European countries don't often pursue such cases as aggressively as the US. The U.S. government has a well-oiled law enforcement and military machine that it uses to pursue its targets across the globe (sometimes with bullying involved). I'm reminded of a case where a woman was extradited from the Netherlands to the U.S. and sentenced to 3 years for sending a relatively paltry $300 to the terrorist group Al-Shabab. https://apnews.com/article/africa-netherlands-somalia-al-shabab-28726c5a5a84f93ac9482f8f5c34e300 https://apnews.com/article/africa-netherlands-somalia-al-sha...
- bolanyo 4y ago
  Obviously this is very different from saying "They chose to illegally run a business in the US."
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Binance provided illegal services to US citizens living in the US. In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. Not doing so doesn't change the fact of providing services in said country, quite the opposite, it might even amount to tax fraud.
    - holmesworcester 4y ago
      > In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. For this statement to be true, you have to modify it to "in a pre-Internet world" or "providing financial services." Hacker News is providing an information and communication service in almost 200 countries where it has not set up a legal entity. You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. But the world would be demonstrably worse if we said "every website in the world that is accessible to Chinese citizens living in China should follow CCP censorship laws." Maybe the world is also worse off for the US's assertion that financial services are a special kind of website that the US can regulate globally simply because some Americans visit them. At the very least, the rest of the world should have some say on a policy that affects what kind of online businesses they can run. But of course there's no mechanism for them to, since only US citizens can direct US policy. Also, think about how impossible it would be to run a website if all countries enforced their local laws on all websites, simply because some of their citizens use foreign websites. The US is doing something that it would be unworkable for all countries to do, simply because it's the most powerful country. That alone should be a hint that it's a morally and politically questionable and based on raw power, not fairness; a fair policy would universalize better across countries.
      - 4y ago

how was their business 'in the US'?

boeingUH60 4y ago

You move money for Americans, then you're subject to U.S. compliance and anti-money laundering laws. It is that simple.

msm_ 4y ago
I'm a citizen of a small European country. I use quite a few American services. Does this mean they are subject to my country's law? Binance used IP-based locking mechanism (easy to avoid with a VPN). Similarly, I saw US-based websites that blocked access to European customers because of GDPR, and I've circumvented their geolocks using a VPN. Does it mean that I can sue them for not following GDPR now? I'm not trying to argue for Binance here, and I think that US compliance and anti-money laundering laws are reasonable. But I wonder if your position is that "everyone should just follow US law", or is it more nuanced.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > I'm a citizen of a small European country. I use quite a few American services. Does this mean they are subject to my country's law? Yes, it does, and most especially if it involves moving funds. If your country decides that the platform broke their laws, they could sue just like the CFTC or even request an arrest and extradition of the alleged perpetrators. But, in reality, European countries don't often pursue such cases as aggressively as the US. The U.S. government has a well-oiled law enforcement and military machine that it uses to pursue its targets across the globe (sometimes with bullying involved). I'm reminded of a case where a woman was extradited from the Netherlands to the U.S. and sentenced to 3 years for sending a relatively paltry $300 to the terrorist group Al-Shabab. https://apnews.com/article/africa-netherlands-somalia-al-shabab-28726c5a5a84f93ac9482f8f5c34e300 https://apnews.com/article/africa-netherlands-somalia-al-sha...
bolanyo 4y ago
Obviously this is very different from saying "They chose to illegally run a business in the US."
- hef19898 4y ago
  Binance provided illegal services to US citizens living in the US. In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. Not doing so doesn't change the fact of providing services in said country, quite the opposite, it might even amount to tax fraud.
  - holmesworcester 4y ago
    > In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. For this statement to be true, you have to modify it to "in a pre-Internet world" or "providing financial services." Hacker News is providing an information and communication service in almost 200 countries where it has not set up a legal entity. You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. But the world would be demonstrably worse if we said "every website in the world that is accessible to Chinese citizens living in China should follow CCP censorship laws." Maybe the world is also worse off for the US's assertion that financial services are a special kind of website that the US can regulate globally simply because some Americans visit them. At the very least, the rest of the world should have some say on a policy that affects what kind of online businesses they can run. But of course there's no mechanism for them to, since only US citizens can direct US policy. Also, think about how impossible it would be to run a website if all countries enforced their local laws on all websites, simply because some of their citizens use foreign websites. The US is doing something that it would be unworkable for all countries to do, simply because it's the most powerful country. That alone should be a hint that it's a morally and politically questionable and based on raw power, not fairness; a fair policy would universalize better across countries.
    - 4y ago