4 ms·

I'm impressed. Leavitt managed to Blame the Biden administration, effectively asserting that Zhao's crimes were a result of the Biden administration's "war on c

I'm impressed. Leavitt managed to Blame the Biden administration, effectively asserting that Zhao's crimes were a result of the Biden administration's "war on crypto." Never mind that Zhao was engaged in criminal activity for which he was prosecuted, tried, and found guilty.

nickff 1y ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Zhao was convicted of crimes which were a direct result of his operating a crypto exchange, and not any other criminal activity. It may be possible to operate a legally-compliant crypto exchange, but I am not sure that any current exchange is fully compliant with US law. If we agree on these facts, and think that the 'war on drugs' is what has resulted in 'drug possession' and 'drug trafficking' convictions, then it seems reasonable to say that Zhao was convicted as the result of a 'war on crypto'. I am actually not sure that either the 'war on drugs' or a 'war on crypto' is a bad idea, but they do seem analogous.
- mullingitover 1y ago
  > and not any other criminal activity He made a lot of money from the other criminal activity. That's what money laundering is: just because you're not directly trafficking children, for example, doesn't mean you have clean hands when you make significant profits from the people who are.
  - nickff 1y ago
    What you're describing is (in my view) the best casus belli for both the 'war on drugs' and a 'war on crypto', but a moral case does not make a criminal case (on its own).
    - mullingitover 1y ago
      I don't even necessarily think a 'war on crypto' is needed. The problem is that crypto seems to function as a get out of jail free card for very straightforward financial crimes: you just do the financial crime, but apply a thin veneer of 'but with crypto' and the legal system is utterly bamboozled. Crypto's problem is that when the law is updated to deal with these stunts, it's suddenly just a crappy version of the existing financial system.
      - nickff 1y ago
        I completely agree that crypto is being used as an end-run (if you'll pardon the expression) around the existing financial oligopoly, whose regulatory burden is paid for by the monopoly rents extracted by the government-endorsed players. The problem is that criminal laws aren't being maximally applied against banks, so instances like this do give the appearance of 'unfairness'.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      The war on drugs creates almost all the negative externalities of drugs to try and stop people making their own choices. It is both a reason not to buy drugs now (you're sponsoring all that other stuff) and a reason it's a ridiculous and immoral policy. It is also on no way comparable to crypto.
  - ClarityJones 1y ago
    Except, correct me if this is wrong, but he wasn't even convicted of money laundering, let alone the underlying crimes you suggest he was launder the proceeds of. It was simply for failing to register / setup an appropriate AML system. Whether any ML occurred, by whom, and in relation to what... are outstanding questions. If he had done all that and all they got him on was a 4-month technicality, that tends to suggest he was probably innocent (or the investigation was inept).
    - cthalupa 1y ago
      I'm not sure you understand the point. It isn't that CZ himself was specifically putting forth the effort to launder money. It isn't that he was specifically doing things to try and make it easier. The point is that he had a legal duty to actively attempt to prevent money laundering. Binance was legally required to do this to operate in the US, and did not. The court case produced messages from the Chief Compliance Officer pointing out a myriad of ways in which they were not complying with various laws of this nature and they were ignored. The BSA is not a technicality and trying to reframe it as one is wild. It is to make sure that people that have a financial incentive to turn a blind eye to money laundering don't turn a blind eye to it. You don't need to be directly involved in the money laundering to be incentivized to let it happen.
      - ClarityJones 1y ago
        The guy was punished with a 4-month jail sentence. It's reasonable to assume his crime was of the sort that would result in a 3-6 month sentence... generally misdemeanors. It's certainly in a different category than speeding or jaywalking, but it's a lot closer to that than to the 150 years that Bernie Madoff got.
- wmf 1y ago
  The CEOs of Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, etc. have not been indicted for anything. Those exchanges have had some compliance issues but they were minor compared to Binance, FTX, BitMEX, etc.
sunshine-o 1y ago
Changpeng Zhao pled guilty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and not complying with anti-money laundering requirements. That also happened to a lot of big banks over and over again. Three days ago one of the biggest was found guilty for helping Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions [0]. Sounds worst. Binance is a casino for millennial and gen Z and like casinos is used by criminal to launder money. Should Changpeng Zhao be pardoned? I don't know, I don't care he is a small fish. Should BNP CEO serves prison time? probably. - [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-170052551.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-17...
- jamesblonde 1y ago
  Whataboutism. Has to be called out.
  - Onavo 1y ago
    Doesn't make the double standards any less true.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    What about the whataboutism of whataboutism? I.e. meta-whataboutism The use of whataboutism and the ‘calling out’ of whataboutisms are both mechanisms of narrative control.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      Whataboutism is a rhetological fallacy. Making fallacies is bad. Pointing out fallacies (or as you put it, "narrative control") is good.
      - cjbgkagh 1y ago
        Controlling the narrative is often the point of using rhetorical fallacies. Like the intolerance of intolerance there is discretion over what are acceptable intolerances. With whataboutism there is discretion over what are acceptable appeals to hypocrisy. Whatsboutism is merely saying your appeal to hypocrisy is invalid. Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. Otherwise they’re being hypocritical about making appeals to hypocrisy. On the substance, I hate what Trump has done. I would not take the position that what Trump did is ok because of what Biden did.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

nickff 1y ago

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Zhao was convicted of crimes which were a direct result of his operating a crypto exchange, and not any other criminal activity. It may be possible to operate a legally-compliant crypto exchange, but I am not sure that any current exchange is fully compliant with US law. If we agree on these facts, and think that the 'war on drugs' is what has resulted in 'drug possession' and 'drug trafficking' convictions, then it seems reasonable to say that Zhao was convicted as the result of a 'war on crypto'. I am actually not sure that either the 'war on drugs' or a 'war on crypto' is a bad idea, but they do seem analogous.

mullingitover 1y ago
> and not any other criminal activity He made a lot of money from the other criminal activity. That's what money laundering is: just because you're not directly trafficking children, for example, doesn't mean you have clean hands when you make significant profits from the people who are.
- nickff 1y ago
  What you're describing is (in my view) the best casus belli for both the 'war on drugs' and a 'war on crypto', but a moral case does not make a criminal case (on its own).
  - mullingitover 1y ago
    I don't even necessarily think a 'war on crypto' is needed. The problem is that crypto seems to function as a get out of jail free card for very straightforward financial crimes: you just do the financial crime, but apply a thin veneer of 'but with crypto' and the legal system is utterly bamboozled. Crypto's problem is that when the law is updated to deal with these stunts, it's suddenly just a crappy version of the existing financial system.
    - nickff 1y ago
      I completely agree that crypto is being used as an end-run (if you'll pardon the expression) around the existing financial oligopoly, whose regulatory burden is paid for by the monopoly rents extracted by the government-endorsed players. The problem is that criminal laws aren't being maximally applied against banks, so instances like this do give the appearance of 'unfairness'.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    The war on drugs creates almost all the negative externalities of drugs to try and stop people making their own choices. It is both a reason not to buy drugs now (you're sponsoring all that other stuff) and a reason it's a ridiculous and immoral policy. It is also on no way comparable to crypto.
- ClarityJones 1y ago
  Except, correct me if this is wrong, but he wasn't even convicted of money laundering, let alone the underlying crimes you suggest he was launder the proceeds of. It was simply for failing to register / setup an appropriate AML system. Whether any ML occurred, by whom, and in relation to what... are outstanding questions. If he had done all that and all they got him on was a 4-month technicality, that tends to suggest he was probably innocent (or the investigation was inept).
  - cthalupa 1y ago
    I'm not sure you understand the point. It isn't that CZ himself was specifically putting forth the effort to launder money. It isn't that he was specifically doing things to try and make it easier. The point is that he had a legal duty to actively attempt to prevent money laundering. Binance was legally required to do this to operate in the US, and did not. The court case produced messages from the Chief Compliance Officer pointing out a myriad of ways in which they were not complying with various laws of this nature and they were ignored. The BSA is not a technicality and trying to reframe it as one is wild. It is to make sure that people that have a financial incentive to turn a blind eye to money laundering don't turn a blind eye to it. You don't need to be directly involved in the money laundering to be incentivized to let it happen.
    - ClarityJones 1y ago
      The guy was punished with a 4-month jail sentence. It's reasonable to assume his crime was of the sort that would result in a 3-6 month sentence... generally misdemeanors. It's certainly in a different category than speeding or jaywalking, but it's a lot closer to that than to the 150 years that Bernie Madoff got.
wmf 1y ago
The CEOs of Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, etc. have not been indicted for anything. Those exchanges have had some compliance issues but they were minor compared to Binance, FTX, BitMEX, etc.

sunshine-o 1y ago

Changpeng Zhao pled guilty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and not complying with anti-money laundering requirements. That also happened to a lot of big banks over and over again. Three days ago one of the biggest was found guilty for helping Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions [0]. Sounds worst. Binance is a casino for millennial and gen Z and like casinos is used by criminal to launder money. Should Changpeng Zhao be pardoned? I don't know, I don't care he is a small fish. Should BNP CEO serves prison time? probably. - [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-170052551.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-17...

jamesblonde 1y ago
Whataboutism. Has to be called out.
- Onavo 1y ago
  Doesn't make the double standards any less true.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  What about the whataboutism of whataboutism? I.e. meta-whataboutism The use of whataboutism and the ‘calling out’ of whataboutisms are both mechanisms of narrative control.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    Whataboutism is a rhetological fallacy. Making fallacies is bad. Pointing out fallacies (or as you put it, "narrative control") is good.
    - cjbgkagh 1y ago
      Controlling the narrative is often the point of using rhetorical fallacies. Like the intolerance of intolerance there is discretion over what are acceptable intolerances. With whataboutism there is discretion over what are acceptable appeals to hypocrisy. Whatsboutism is merely saying your appeal to hypocrisy is invalid. Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. Otherwise they’re being hypocritical about making appeals to hypocrisy. On the substance, I hate what Trump has done. I would not take the position that what Trump did is ok because of what Biden did.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]