21–30 of 45 posts
I don't agree with the ruling, but I wonder how many people out there are living the good life because of dodgy funds they laundered through Tornado Cash. Flying in private jets, driving lambos, drinking the finest whisky. While many of those that do honest work like teaching the next generation live in poverty.
This story is framed oddly. Imagine if you blamed, say, cash, for being used by North Korea. Also compare this treatment to the employees at Wells Fargo/Wachovia who laundered billions for Mexican drug cartels, >The settlement reached between Wachovia and U.S. authorities, known as a "deferred prosecution," raises questions. It's a probationary agreement, effectively allowing the bank to evade prosecution if it abide…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was he making the software better for criminals because he wanted to help (and presumably benefit from) criminals, or was he just making the software more private for anyone, and that happened to help criminals too? I don't know the answer, but I imagine looking at the benefits of his actions would help inform. Did he have ties to criminal organizations, or receive payments from them?
> While Pertsev added functionality to the web interface that allowed legitimate users to separate their funds from those arriving from known criminal addresses, they characterized the effort as “too little and too late.” When you add a "don't mix my stuff with the known criminal accounts" toggle in the UI, it's hard to argue ignorance.
The on chain contract like that can't possibly know which funds are "illicit" or "marked as suspicious". Only users entering the contract can possibly have some logic on the client side to bail out if they notice the would be joining funds with some best effort list of "illicit" addresses, and there's really nothing forcing them to use it.
I bet generally here both the public and judges do not understand the technical details.
This story is framed oddly. Imagine if you blamed, say, cash, for being used by North Korea. Also compare this treatment to the employees at Wells Fargo/Wachovia who laundered billions for Mexican drug cartels, >The settlement reached between Wachovia and U.S. authorities, known as a "deferred prosecution," raises questions. It's a probationary agreement, effectively allowing the bank to evade prosecution if it abide…
Wells Fargo employees who knowingly processed money for drug cartels went to prison too. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/wells-fargo-personal-ba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wells Fargo employees who knowingly processed money for drug cartels went to prison too. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/wells-fargo-personal-ba...
Got half of the time of that developer, while knowingly and directly laundering that money for a cartel ? :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got half of the time of that developer, while knowingly and directly laundering that money for a cartel ? :D
Got half the time of that developer for laundering 1% as much money.
> More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn
But they locked up one dude who did:
> These 11 fictitious accounts alone were used by the criminal organization to wire transfer a total of $3.8 million to Mexico.
Justice was served indeed.
I don't agree with the ruling, but I wonder how many people out there are living the good life because of dodgy funds they laundered through Tornado Cash. Flying in private jets, driving lambos, drinking the finest whisky. While many of those that do honest work like teaching the next generation live in poverty.
Those suckers doing honest work (whatever that means) should have used Tornado Cash to protect their earning from the tax man.
Crypto, used for illegal activity? I am shocked, shocked ! Well, not that shocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was he making the software better for criminals because he wanted to help (and presumably benefit from) criminals, or was he just making the software more private for anyone, and that happened to help criminals too? I don't know the answer, but I imagine looking at the benefits of his actions would help inform. Did he have ties to criminal organizations, or receive payments from them?
> While Pertsev added functionality to the web interface that allowed legitimate users to separate their funds from those arriving from known criminal addresses, they characterized the effort as “too little and too late.” When you add a "don't mix my stuff with the known criminal accounts" toggle in the UI, it's hard to argue ignorance.
Lots of open source software activists are idealists. This is why I asked if there's evidence they were actually receiving illicit funds.