4 ms·

Interesting hand-waving going on here. For some reason they're citing the California Commercial Code when they know full well than FinCEN Guidance FIN-2013-G001

Interesting hand-waving going on here. For some reason they're citing the California Commercial Code when they know full well than FinCEN Guidance FIN-2013-G001 (http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....) takes precedence. Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point, and the Department of the Treasury has already deemed that it is within the bounds of state regulators. Any semantic argument to the contrary is just ridiculous. Also surprising that a reputable law firm wouldn't have known that as of July 1, 2013, the DFI no longer exists, and has been merged into the California Department of Business Oversight. I'll be interested to see how the DBO responds, or if this comes up at the AB 786 hearing tomorrow.

Torgo 13y ago
Does federal law take precedence for state regulation? It just seems like California has a narrower definition of "money transmitter" for the purposes of regulation inside their own borders above and beyond the federal one. Also, if a business is in compliance by state law but out of compliance federally, is California obligated to do anything about that? They allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate despite being illegal at the federal level. Not insinuating you're wrong, just legitimately curious since IANAL.
- thinkcomp 13y ago
  Federal law definitely would preempt state regulation. Here, FinCEN has issued a guidance with what I believe is the weight of federal regulation however. California typically ignores FinCEN rulings (except this one), but generally shouldn't. Preemption is a complex business. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of the reasons why the issue is in federal court. The rules are so complex and contradictory as to be more of a burden on society than a help.
Terretta 13y ago
> Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point On the contrary, I found myself having an "a ha" moment when they pointed out that nobody, anywhere, is obligated to give a holder of bitcoin anything. Reminds me of when Bernanke told Ron Paul that gold is not money. (Presumably for similar reason: it represents stored confidence, not an entity backed guarantee of payment.)

Torgo 13y ago

Does federal law take precedence for state regulation? It just seems like California has a narrower definition of "money transmitter" for the purposes of regulation inside their own borders above and beyond the federal one. Also, if a business is in compliance by state law but out of compliance federally, is California obligated to do anything about that? They allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate despite being illegal at the federal level. Not insinuating you're wrong, just legitimately curious since IANAL.

thinkcomp 13y ago
Federal law definitely would preempt state regulation. Here, FinCEN has issued a guidance with what I believe is the weight of federal regulation however. California typically ignores FinCEN rulings (except this one), but generally shouldn't. Preemption is a complex business. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of the reasons why the issue is in federal court. The rules are so complex and contradictory as to be more of a burden on society than a help.

Terretta 13y ago

> Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point On the contrary, I found myself having an "a ha" moment when they pointed out that nobody, anywhere, is obligated to give a holder of bitcoin anything. Reminds me of when Bernanke told Ron Paul that gold is not money. (Presumably for similar reason: it represents stored confidence, not an entity backed guarantee of payment.)