4 ms·

The developers of Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Matrix, Tor, and BitTorrent would also be liable under this logic.

ForHackernews 3y ago
None of those are money transfer protocols, AFAIK. Except wasn't Signal adding some cryptocurrency silliness too? So maybe they would be liable.
- tw04 3y ago
  Signal integrated someone else's crypto. Presumably mobilecoin would be liable, not signal.
baby 3y ago
Movement of money is different from movement of information. That being said I believe Signal has a cryptocoin nowadays.
woodruffw 3y ago
This is a false sense of solidarity: each of the above (with maybe the exception of BitTorrent) is a communications platform, not something expressly designed to violate KYC/AML laws. The USG can be legitimately accused of all kinds of gross excesses, but they can't be accused of not understanding the difference between these things. Pretending otherwise doesn't do any party any particular justice.
- junofan 3y ago
  The real answer is that the IEEPA has an informational materials exemption.
- miracle2k 3y ago
  > not something expressly designed to violate KYC/AML laws. Tornado Cash was not designed to violate laws as per intent of the authors. Maybe it is your judgement of the design itself. Whether or not it in fact does is something we may possibly find out (if the US plea-deal system doesn't prevent it). Even then, a guilty verdict might hinge on technicalities around the TORN token.
  - acdha 3y ago
    They’re not being charged for the design: > As alleged, when it became clear that a sanctioned North Korean cybercrime organization was using the platform to launder hundreds of millions of dollars derived from cyber heists, Storm and Semenov turned a blind eye to the illicit activity and made public representations that they were compliant with sanctions laws. Now, we don’t know how much evidence they have about that knowledge but federal prosecutors usually don’t bring cases like this speculatively. I would be surprised if they didn’t have specific example of them clearly being aware of that information and choosing not to act - for a relatively high-profile case they’re not going to want the embarrassment of losing. EDIT: Tracking down the actual PDF has things like this: > 59. ROMAN STORM, ROMAN SEMENOV, the defendants, and CC-1 were fully aware within days of the Ronin Network hack that the proceeds of the hack were in fact being deposited into the Tornado Cash service. For instance, on or about April 4, 2022, a reporter sent an email to an email address used by all three Tornado Cash founders asking for comment on the Ronin Network hack, in which the reporter included a link to a blockchain analytics website and stated that "it appears that these hackers are trying to use Tornado.cash to launder stolen funds." > 67. ROMAN STORM and ROMAN SEMENOV, the defendants, and CC-1 well knew that the Tornado Cash service was continuing to launder proceeds of the Ronin Network hack held in the Lazarus Group's 0x098B716 Address. On or about April 30, 2022, SEMENOV sent a message to STORM and CC-1 through the Encrypted App with a link to a blockchain analysis showing that 15% of all of the deposits into the Tornado Cash service over the preceding three months had come from the Ronin Network hack. The analysis also showed that more than 90% of all the deposits into the Tornado Cash service for which a source could be identified during that same time period were attributable to criminal exploits. https://www.justice.gov/media/1311391/dl https://www.justice.gov/media/1311391/dl 90% is a pretty large number, and that pattern of ongoing knowledge is significant, too. As an analogy, if I run a bike shop and some dude brings in a stolen bike, I’m not getting arrested but that’s not true if 90% of the bikes in my shop are from the same dodgy guys the cops are looking for.
    - miracle2k 3y ago
      > I would be surprised if they didn’t have specific example of them clearly being aware of that information and choosing not to act. Yeah, I'm sure the FBI needed to bring out their top detectives to find "evidence" that the Tornado Cash devs where not aware that criminals used their service. I guess they never googled themselves or talked to anyone ever. This case isn't a dispute about the facts. It's a fight about if existing AML legislation can be stretched to include new types of financial actors on blockchains. Most people here simply have no idea how Tornado Cash operated, don't care to ask themselves what the underlying principles should be, what kinds of obligations should be in miners, and would probably support the arrest of Vitalik Buterin on money laundering charges.

None of those are money transfer protocols, AFAIK. Except wasn't Signal adding some cryptocurrency silliness too? So maybe they would be liable.

tw04 3y ago
Signal integrated someone else's crypto. Presumably mobilecoin would be liable, not signal.

baby 3y ago

Movement of money is different from movement of information. That being said I believe Signal has a cryptocoin nowadays.

woodruffw 3y ago

This is a false sense of solidarity: each of the above (with maybe the exception of BitTorrent) is a communications platform, not something expressly designed to violate KYC/AML laws. The USG can be legitimately accused of all kinds of gross excesses, but they can't be accused of not understanding the difference between these things. Pretending otherwise doesn't do any party any particular justice.

junofan 3y ago
The real answer is that the IEEPA has an informational materials exemption.
miracle2k 3y ago
> not something expressly designed to violate KYC/AML laws. Tornado Cash was not designed to violate laws as per intent of the authors. Maybe it is your judgement of the design itself. Whether or not it in fact does is something we may possibly find out (if the US plea-deal system doesn't prevent it). Even then, a guilty verdict might hinge on technicalities around the TORN token.
- acdha 3y ago
  They’re not being charged for the design: > As alleged, when it became clear that a sanctioned North Korean cybercrime organization was using the platform to launder hundreds of millions of dollars derived from cyber heists, Storm and Semenov turned a blind eye to the illicit activity and made public representations that they were compliant with sanctions laws. Now, we don’t know how much evidence they have about that knowledge but federal prosecutors usually don’t bring cases like this speculatively. I would be surprised if they didn’t have specific example of them clearly being aware of that information and choosing not to act - for a relatively high-profile case they’re not going to want the embarrassment of losing. EDIT: Tracking down the actual PDF has things like this: > 59. ROMAN STORM, ROMAN SEMENOV, the defendants, and CC-1 were fully aware within days of the Ronin Network hack that the proceeds of the hack were in fact being deposited into the Tornado Cash service. For instance, on or about April 4, 2022, a reporter sent an email to an email address used by all three Tornado Cash founders asking for comment on the Ronin Network hack, in which the reporter included a link to a blockchain analytics website and stated that "it appears that these hackers are trying to use Tornado.cash to launder stolen funds." > 67. ROMAN STORM and ROMAN SEMENOV, the defendants, and CC-1 well knew that the Tornado Cash service was continuing to launder proceeds of the Ronin Network hack held in the Lazarus Group's 0x098B716 Address. On or about April 30, 2022, SEMENOV sent a message to STORM and CC-1 through the Encrypted App with a link to a blockchain analysis showing that 15% of all of the deposits into the Tornado Cash service over the preceding three months had come from the Ronin Network hack. The analysis also showed that more than 90% of all the deposits into the Tornado Cash service for which a source could be identified during that same time period were attributable to criminal exploits. https://www.justice.gov/media/1311391/dl https://www.justice.gov/media/1311391/dl 90% is a pretty large number, and that pattern of ongoing knowledge is significant, too. As an analogy, if I run a bike shop and some dude brings in a stolen bike, I’m not getting arrested but that’s not true if 90% of the bikes in my shop are from the same dodgy guys the cops are looking for.
  - miracle2k 3y ago
    > I would be surprised if they didn’t have specific example of them clearly being aware of that information and choosing not to act. Yeah, I'm sure the FBI needed to bring out their top detectives to find "evidence" that the Tornado Cash devs where not aware that criminals used their service. I guess they never googled themselves or talked to anyone ever. This case isn't a dispute about the facts. It's a fight about if existing AML legislation can be stretched to include new types of financial actors on blockchains. Most people here simply have no idea how Tornado Cash operated, don't care to ask themselves what the underlying principles should be, what kinds of obligations should be in miners, and would probably support the arrest of Vitalik Buterin on money laundering charges.