41–50 of 256 posts
Interesting. Bitcoin stolen from Sheep Marketplace also ended up in a BTC-E account. https://www.reddit.com/r/SheepMarketplace/comments/1t0ueq/sh... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/09/recoverin...
The question for me is: why US? He is a Russian citizen, the company is based in Bulgaria, servers in Russia, legal HQ in Cyprus and all the services operated from Seychelles - arrested in Greece. The MtGox hack affected a Japanese company. I'm not debating the nature of the crimes, etc - I am just wondering, when does it become a US case? I can get the "there were US customers" - but why not Europe? Or Japan? Or Rus…
What are those?
The question for me is: why US? He is a Russian citizen, the company is based in Bulgaria, servers in Russia, legal HQ in Cyprus and all the services operated from Seychelles - arrested in Greece. The MtGox hack affected a Japanese company. I'm not debating the nature of the crimes, etc - I am just wondering, when does it become a US case? I can get the "there were US customers" - but why not Europe? Or Japan? Or Rus…
Edit, found this: "FinCEN today assessed a $110 million civil money penalty against BTC-e for willfully violating U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Alexander Vinnik was assessed $12 million for his role in the violations." In the US, government agencies can keep such fines for themselves, providing them with a nice incentive to go after such cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "why" is just "because the DoJ made a case before Europe or Japan". The "how" is just extradition. Greece was willing to extradite him to the US to face these charges. The US would do the same with Greece, though not with Russia as we lack an extradition treaty with Russia (and probably not to face a charge that would be a clear first amendment violation anyway).
I don't mean to be argumentative but surely no [BTC-e] US customer was a "victim" of any money laundering that may have been going on? Edit: Since my question wasn't clear, the emphasis was on customer , as in: "customers of a business that also engages in money laundering aren't usually considered victims of that money laundering."
More to the point though: money laundering statutes were written (speaking very broadly) because they don't have to prove the underlying crime. It's criminal to be evading disclosure and tracking requirements even if all the money was obtained legally.
Interesting. Bitcoin stolen from Sheep Marketplace also ended up in a BTC-E account. https://www.reddit.com/r/SheepMarketplace/comments/1t0ueq/sh... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/09/recoverin...
I wonder how much BTC-e knew about these money sources. Were they a general "don't ask, don't tell" laundering operation that just so happened to be used by these people because it was their best laundering option, or were they directly involved in some of the hacks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "why" is just "because the DoJ made a case before Europe or Japan". The "how" is just extradition. Greece was willing to extradite him to the US to face these charges. The US would do the same with Greece, though not with Russia as we lack an extradition treaty with Russia (and probably not to face a charge that would be a clear first amendment violation anyway).
I don't mean to be argumentative but surely no [BTC-e] US customer was a "victim" of any money laundering that may have been going on? Edit: Since my question wasn't clear, the emphasis was on customer , as in: "customers of a business that also engages in money laundering aren't usually considered victims of that money laundering."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to be argumentative but surely no [BTC-e] US customer was a "victim" of any money laundering that may have been going on? Edit: Since my question wasn't clear, the emphasis was on customer , as in: "customers of a business that also engages in money laundering aren't usually considered victims of that money laundering."
Uh, "surely"? It seems extraordinarily unlikely that in a $4 BILLION money laundering effort that none of that money came from sources in the US. More to the point though: money laundering statutes were written (speaking very broadly) because they don't have to prove the underlying crime. It's criminal to be evading disclosure and tracking requirements even if all the money was obtained legally.
It was criminal to help fuel a nuclear arms race that put everyone at risk of nuclear holocaust. It was criminal to destroy Iraq for bullshit reasons. It's criminal to kill people with drones based on metadata.
But criminalizing money laundering? That's just power tripping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to be argumentative but surely no [BTC-e] US customer was a "victim" of any money laundering that may have been going on? Edit: Since my question wasn't clear, the emphasis was on customer , as in: "customers of a business that also engages in money laundering aren't usually considered victims of that money laundering."
Uh, "surely"? It seems extraordinarily unlikely that in a $4 BILLION money laundering effort that none of that money came from sources in the US. More to the point though: money laundering statutes were written (speaking very broadly) because they don't have to prove the underlying crime. It's criminal to be evading disclosure and tracking requirements even if all the money was obtained legally.
What I meant is I've been to a restaurant which turned out to be a money laundering front but I can't seriously describe myself as a victim. In fact, the food there was cheap and delicious!
But I appreciate your clarification. To rephrase what you are saying: it falls under US jurisdiction because some US persons were victims of a crime and some of that crime money ended up being traded on BTC-e (allegedly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "why" is just "because the DoJ made a case before Europe or Japan". The "how" is just extradition. Greece was willing to extradite him to the US to face these charges. The US would do the same with Greece, though not with Russia as we lack an extradition treaty with Russia (and probably not to face a charge that would be a clear first amendment violation anyway).
I don't mean to be argumentative but surely no [BTC-e] US customer was a "victim" of any money laundering that may have been going on? Edit: Since my question wasn't clear, the emphasis was on customer , as in: "customers of a business that also engages in money laundering aren't usually considered victims of that money laundering."
Interesting. Bitcoin stolen from Sheep Marketplace also ended up in a BTC-E account. https://www.reddit.com/r/SheepMarketplace/comments/1t0ueq/sh... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/09/recoverin...
I wonder how much BTC-e knew about these money sources. Were they a general "don't ask, don't tell" laundering operation that just so happened to be used by these people because it was their best laundering option, or were they directly involved in some of the hacks?
0) http://invezz.com/analysis/forex/147-btc-e-anonymity-reigns-...