BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox • Hacker News Board

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#251

Post by hippich » Fri, Jul 28, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #242

hippich wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what even more strange is that whole world should follow quirky us system rules. put usa citizens in jail for not following usa rules, not foreign companies.

You don't have to follow USA rules unless you do business within USA. The key point is that doing fully digital business online (as opposed to selling physical goods online to people within your country) doesn't mean that no jurisdiction applies, it means that all of them do - if you do international trade with USA, then you have to be mindful of USA laws.

When I (located in USA) buy physical product from other country - it is my responsibility to import it properly. But somehow digital services put burden for following USA countries on foreign entities.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#252

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Jul 28, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #240

Jabanga wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Subsequently I expect to see Monero delisted from any exchange that follows KYC after some pressure from law enforcement. This would be a very dangerous precedent for the cause of privacy. It's the financial equivalent of banning encrypted communication.

There's no dangerous precedent/slippery slope - in the financial world offering a money transfer service to anonymous customers is already banned, that's what KYC/AML laws are intended to do. There's no right to trade anonymously and for large transactions legitimate businesses are required to identify you and not accept anonymous customers (KYC requirement). It doesn't necessarily mean prohibiting anonymous instrume…

>There's no dangerous precedent/slippery slope

The parent comment gave a prediction of Monero being banned by exchanges. That is the electronic equivalent of banning cash deposits.

>E.g. you can legally sell stuff for a briefcase of cash, but you're required to declare the transaction, including the identity of that person (e.g., in USA, IRS form 8300 for cash amounts exceeding $10000; you can legally sell stuff online for Monero or whatever other consideration, but if it's a significant amount, then you are required to identify the person even if the payment instrument is anonymous.

While unrelated to the topic I was referring to, this is indeed a slippery slope. The minimum amount for reporting to FinCEN started at $10,000 decades ago, and hasn't changed despite inflation reducing the real value of that sum by several fold.

In some countries the minimum amount has even been reduced in nominal terms, despite it already gradually declining in real terms due to inflation. Amidst this gradual criminalisation of ever less substantial anonymous cash transactions, there are a growing number of calls for banning cash altogether. That is a textbook example of a slippery slope.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#253

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Jul 28, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #247

emodendroket wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating multiple issues here. As far as I know, nobody considers it money laundering to unwittingly accept money from illegal activities as payment. But I don't buy the idea that if I knowingly set out to conceal the source of ill-gotten funds then I've done nothing wrong. I've colluded with criminals to abet their crime in that scenario.

Know-your-customer laws do just that. Go to a bank with $20000 in cash and no ID, and try to open an anonymous account with it. Take that $20k to a car dealership, and try to buy a car off the lot with it. As you walk away, cops stop you and take your cash via forfeiture. The prevailing assumption seems to be that anyone carrying that much cash is a criminal. The assumption should be that cash is cash, is cash, is ca…

I think you are still confused about what constitutes money laundering. Accepting money from a criminal in exchange for goods or services is not money laundering, yet your whole post is about that.

Like, let's take the complication of know your customer out for a second. Of course you should not be prosecuted because a bank robber comes to your store and uses the money he stole to buy something. But if you are keeping fraudulent books in a cash-heavy business to conceal the source of tens of thousands of dollars you or your associates made through criminal activity, why shouldn't it be a crime?

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#254

Post by armitron » Sat, Jul 29, 2017, 1:52 AM UTC

hectorr1 wrote: post #172

csomar wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has this "thinking" that the world is just their backyard. It is not really in the law, strictly speaking. But if you have been watching the news, they strongly interfere with countries for their own (or their politicians) benefit. For example, they hit Libya with missiles right when Al-Gaddafi sent troupes to defend from future-ISIS militants. So yes, the US will get involved in stuff that matters to it. > Th…

You're not wrong, but also dismiss some tough moral choices. I'd argue that attacking Libya was against U.S. strategic interests. Since 9/11 Gaddafi had substantially improved relations with the west. He gave up his nuclear program and was basically acting as Europe's bouncer. Since he fell the migrant crisis has exploded. North Korea and Iran learned that despite all promises otherwise, the only way to ensure regime…

Watch hypernormalization for a radically different take.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#255

Post by armitron » Sat, Jul 29, 2017, 1:56 AM UTC

794CD01 wrote: post #192

always_good wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't really explained or justified anything. "Them's the rules!!!" What if Thailand wanted to extradite you because you joked about their king on HN? You would just laugh, not make a point about "well, what do you expect when you challenge a nation's royal sovereignty? Have some respect on the internet! Thailand takes this very seriously."

You would laugh because they have no power to enforce their laws globally, and possibly also because the country you live in has free speech laws that make them unlikely to extradite someone for lese-majeste. The US does have that power and the cooperation of foreign governments.

And does that inspire confidence?

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#256

Post by onestone » Sat, Jul 29, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

openmosix wrote: post #22

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…

Why is it always assumed that the "company" was based in Bulgaria? Which "company" is it? As a Bulgarian myself I've seen that mentioned several times in the past, even on reputable sites, but never seen any actual evidence.

P.S. An investigation from 2 days ago also fails to find any Bulgarian connection to BTC-e: https://bivol.bg/en/no-bulgarian-connection-found-so-far-in-...