Once they descended into coal mines, miners would take a caged canary with them. The poisonous gasses, notably carbon monoxide, that accumulate in these locations and pose a lethal threat to miners, would kill the canaries earlier than the miners. This info made them conscious of the hazard, enabling them to evacuate earlier than it was too late.
On Might 14, 2024, Alexey Pertsev, a software program developer who constructed an open-source software to protect on-line privateness, was discovered responsible of cash laundering and sentenced to greater than 5 years in jail by a Dutch court docket.
Within the court docket’s determination, the next could be learn: “The tool developed by the suspect and his co-authors combines maximum anonymity and optimal concealment techniques with a serious lack of identification functionalities. Therefore, the tool cannot be characterized as a legitimate tool that has been inadvertently used by criminals. By its nature and operation, the tool is specifically intended for criminals.”
In search of to protect one’s privateness is thus at worst proof of criminality, at finest complicity in a criminal offense. A threshold has been crossed.
Sadly, it’s seemingly that this case will generate little empathy and curiosity, because the particular person concerned labored within the crypto business, and the software developed, Twister Money, was supposed to protect transaction confidentiality.
Nevertheless, it could be a grave mistake to contemplate this an remoted incident restricted to a fledgling business for which the general public has little affection.
That is our canary within the coal mine.
It has stopped singing and is dying. If we don’t react, all of the miners will perish. Cryptos are an early and evident revealer of an insidious phenomenon that has been eroding our liberal democracies for about thirty years and is reaching a degree of no return.
Regardless of the shortage of proof of their effectiveness, monetary surveillance measures proceed to be frequently bolstered, defying all democratic guidelines and necessities: the primacy of secrecy, freedom as a norm, the precept of proportionality of rights limitations, technological neutrality, presumption of innocence… Preemptive management previous to any offense turns into the norm, the enforcement of regulation turns into selective and arbitrary, checking account closures tackle the looks of censorship and monetary suffocation, and property rights are lowered to a mere shadow.
The struggle in opposition to cash laundering and terrorist financing has degenerated into collective hysteria worthy of authoritarian and even totalitarian regimes, to the purpose of criminalizing a basic and constitutional proper: privateness. The well-known American laptop engineer Phil Zimmermann warned us in 1991: “if privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.”
Removed from being a “crypto” problem, this shift away from liberal democracy issues everybody. There are quite a few examples in regimes recognized for his or her democracy, spanning from India to the UK, and from Canada to France.
Observe: If the crypto half doesn’t curiosity you, you may proceed on to half II.
I. Classes from the Canary
1. The US Includes Itself
Lower than a 12 months in the past, the arrest of the Twister Money builders had already legitimately brought on fairly a stir. However the scope of the case, restricted to the crypto world, perceived as a den of terrorists and cash launderers, had shortly confined the indignation to a small group of insiders.
In April 2024, American and European public authorities, emboldened by this success, continued to maneuver ahead in a worrying path.1
A number of occasions occurred virtually concurrently. The arrest of the builders of the Bitcoin pockets builders of Samourai Pockets, by the FBI in cooperation with the IRS (the American tax authority), with the responsible cooperation of European authorities, kicked issues off. Their crime could be to have “conspired to launder money” and to have “operated an unlicensed money transfer business”.2 They face 20 years’ imprisonment for the primary cost and 5 years for the second. By comparability, the utmost irreducible life sentence in France is 30 years.
Following this was an FBI discover3 urging all Individuals to not use “money transmitting businesses” that don’t accumulate their identification and should not registered. And the Federal Bureau continued by threatening to freeze all funds that had been combined with funds obtained by means of unlawful means.
To raised perceive the absurdity of such an announcement by the FBI, allow us to transpose the reasoning into the bodily world, and spotlight two main points.
The primary issues the accusation of working an unlicensed cash switch enterprise.
Samourai Pockets is an organization that gives Bitcoin wallets with enhanced transaction privateness. It doesn’t function transactions on behalf of its shoppers; it supplies the pockets software program. Within the bodily world, their equal could be a leather-based craftsman who crafts leather-based wallets enabling their customers to retailer money. He facilitates money administration however has no say in how the pockets house owners spend their money.
Right here, the U.S. federal providers conflate and lump collectively a big financial institution that operates transactions on behalf of its shoppers and a leather-based craftsman, holding the latter chargeable for how his shoppers use their money.
How far can we go together with this line of reasoning? To ATMs? To the folks on the Central Financial institution who print these payments? To the lumberjacks who produce the wooden used for the paper of the payments?
Equally, ought to we maintain a carpenter chargeable for what his shoppers determine to place within the furnishings they make? Or an architect if the home they construct finally ends up getting used for drug trafficking?
It shortly turns into obvious that this conflation is totally absurd. A pockets creator will not be chargeable for what the pockets proprietor decides to do with the cash saved in it. Being a part of the money or money storage worth chain ought to under no circumstances indicate duty for its closing use, as there isn’t a restrict to this reasoning.
This query was truly raised 20 years in the past relating to peer-to-peer exchanges, which permit a number of folks to change info instantly in a decentralized method. This communication protocol and the software program that allow it are typically used to commit offenses, significantly in opposition to mental property rights. Nevertheless, regardless of makes an attempt to criminalize the software itself4, European5 and American6 courts have dominated in favor of technological neutrality, stating that the software program in query permits each authorized and unlawful exchanges and that their suppliers should not chargeable for the use made by third events. The case regulation then targeted on the duty of every particular person concerned in a probably criminality, acquitting some people resulting from lack of proof of their felony intent7. These judicial options are clearly according to the traditional train of basic rights.
The second problem lies in the specter of fund blocking.
Freezing any cash combined with funds obtained by means of unlawful means could be equal to arresting anybody whose payments, whether or not of their leather-based pockets or pocket, have handed by means of the improper fingers.
In 2009, a college examine coated by CNN confirmed that 90% of American greenback payments carry traces of cocaine, and as much as 100% in some main cities8. This helps us higher perceive the absurdity of the FBI’s menace: virtually all of the money on this planet has already handed by means of the improper fingers. Ought to all money holders be imprisoned? In fact not.
Following these absurd coercive actions, on 26 April 2024, the USA Legal professional for the Southern District of New York printed the federal government’s rationale in opposition to Roman Storm9, the lead developer of the privateness software program Twister Money. The creator insists, contemplating Twister Money as a “money transmitting business.”
Based on this argument, “the definition of “money transmitting” in Section 1960 does not require the money transmitter to have ‘control’ of the funds being transferred. […] For instance, a USB cable transfers data from one device to another […].”
A really broad definition of a “money transmitting business” that may even embrace USB cables, based on their very own admission. At this charge, the query will quickly turn out to be “who is not a money transmitter?”
Right here, the DOJ (Division of Justice) is so formidable that it goes in opposition to the rules offered by FinCen (Financial Crime Enforcement Community, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Division). In different phrases, the U.S. authorities doesn’t agree with itself, which signifies a sure uneasiness.
In 2013, FinCen defined that software program builders weren’t “money transmitters” (“The production and distribution of software, in and of itself, does not constitute acceptance and transmission of value, even if the purpose of the software is to facilitate the sale of virtual currency.”10).
In 2019, following an inquiry relating to sure programmable options on Bitcoin (Time-locked and multi-signature), FinCen reiterated that the partial management that might be exercised by pockets builders was not ample to qualify them as “money transmitters” (“the person participating in the transaction to provide additional validation at the request of the owner does not have totally independent control over the value.”11).
2. Europe on the Forefront of an Intolerant Shift
Past the opportunistic {qualifications} of varied events and to return extra merely to the way in which the regulation ought to be utilized in a liberal democracy, let’s recall that cryptocurrency transfers are transfers of digital communications based on the definition offered by European Union regulation12.
Furthermore, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum permit for the change of communications that may be certified as correspondences (the probabilities of change should not restricted to financial models). Digital communications are protected by the correct to privateness and private information safety, and a limitation equivalent to lifting confidentiality or blocking can solely be justified whether it is vital for the efficient pursuit of an outlined goal, in a strictly proportionate method, significantly within the case of a confirmed offense and personally dedicated by the person whose communication is restricted.
The Court docket of Justice of the European Union has additionally dominated on this sense, contemplating that the systematic evaluation of communications, even when potential, infringes on the basic proper to the safety of customers’ private information, in violation of the Constitution of Elementary Rights of the European Union. The Court docket specifies that an injunction to dam communications that doesn’t distinguish “between illegal and legal content […] could result in the blocking of communications with legal content” and thus infringe on the liberty of expression and communication13. Concerning cryptocurrency transfers, we are able to additionally invoke an infringement on the correct to property.
It’s subsequently inconceivable, in a liberal democracy, to ask a personal actor to dam transactions or different forms of communications with out being sure of their illegality.
We are able to word one other handy schizophrenia on the a part of the American authorities, which Lyn Alden aptly summarizes by referring to “Schrödinger’s Currency”14: Bitcoin is taken into account as a foreign money solely when it permits for the prosecution of people. The remainder of the time, it’s a speculative software to which this qualification is denied. Certainly, to use the definition of “money transmitter,” it’s vital to contemplate that what’s being transmitted (bitcoins) is certainly cash. To the purpose that the federal government argues that “Bitcoin clearly qualifies as money” with a purpose to prosecute Roman Storm.
Europe frequently engages on this distortion as nicely, as I had already proven within the justification invoked to incorporate “crypto-assets” within the TFR regulation. Cryptos have certainly appeared in a textual content that beforehand focused solely “banknotes and coins, scriptural money, and electronic money.” However to say that Bitcoin is a foreign money…
Furthermore, in Europe, coincidentally, a brand new regulation was voted on April 25 imposing new monetary constraints, nonetheless with the laudable goal of combating cash laundering15.
Among the many constraints, we are able to significantly word a €10,000 money fee restrict throughout Europe, but in addition the requirement for digital asset service suppliers (DASPs) to gather much more details about their shoppers, together with for transactions below €1,000, and for private wallets, often called “self-custodial,” “self-hosted,” or “un-hosted,” i.e., not managed by a monetary middleman on behalf of third events. The leather-based wallets of the digital world.
A small digression into Newspeak right here: by imposing the terminology “self-hosted” or “un-hosted,” regulators and legislators are attempting to implement the view that third-party custody is the norm, and self-custody is the exception. That is clearly a harmful and insidious view, suggesting that wanting to maintain one’s personal cash is suspicious, regardless that it’s a part of the traditional train of freedoms. There are not any “un-hosted” or “self-hosted” wallets. There are simply wallets, interval. And there are third events who maintain wallets on behalf of others.
Returning to the textual content, let’s casually word that it’s significantly exact and imposes know-your-customer (KYC) necessities for transactions below €1,000 solely on DASPs, exempting banks and different monetary establishments, which deal with far bigger volumes than DASPs. The proportionality of this quantity and this discrimination will not be justified.
As well as, there’s a ban on supporting enhanced privateness cryptocurrencies. Allow us to recall right here that historic commodity monies (gold, silver, copper, bones, and many others.) are nameless, as remains to be money right now. The ban is subsequently inequitable and strikes below the pretext of its digital nature. It’s once more unjustified, though it unacceptably hinders the traditional train of a freedom since we’re speaking about its outright extinction (such a disproportion will not be admitted by the European Court docket of Human Rights16).
As beforehand talked about, all these actions are extraordinarily problematic in a number of respects.
First, as a result of these constraints are based mostly on no rational reasoning or related justification and are merely the results of paranoia associated to cryptos, coupled with a KYC mannequin (Know Your Buyer, the shopper identification processes imposed on monetary establishments) that has been elevated to a faith regardless of the shortage of convincing outcomes over a number of a long time. Second, as a result of they disregard the necessities for the safety of basic freedoms on which the European Union was constructed and to which it’s topic. Third, as a result of they’re counterproductive, which means they create new threats, the results of that are more and more extreme.
3. An Unfounded Paranoia
Almost all texts coping with the “necessary” regulation of “crypto-assets” have deserted scientific and authorized rigor to the purpose of by no means proving the preliminary assertion from which their reasoning begins: “cryptos are a good means to facilitate money laundering.”
To understand this, one solely wants to research all of the texts on the topic issued in recent times. That is an train I’ve already completed for the TFR textual content17. Certainly, within the “proportionality” paragraph of the proposed modification to the regulation, there’s a small phrase indicating that, based on the opinion of EU surveillance authorities, “specific” risk-increasing components have been recognized regarding cryptos.
Why is proportionality an especially essential precept in a state ruled by the rule of regulation?
As a result of the adequacy of a legislative normal or instrument to the pursued goal, i.e., the steadiness between the infringement on a proper and the overall curiosity, is totally essential to keep away from authoritarian and liberty-infringing drifts. One can not cover behind an goal, nonetheless commendable, to impose disproportionate restrictions on rights.
For instance, one would possibly assume that by putting in a policeman in everybody’s dwelling, crime could be lowered. The target could also be thought-about laudable, however the person rights that may be compromised within the course of signify an unacceptable discount in freedoms. Thus, society decides to tolerate probably greater crime charges (topic to the dangers to freedoms generated by surveillance itself) with a purpose to protect the rule of regulation and basic freedoms, with out which democracy can not exist.
Conversely, the prohibition of alcohol whereas driving is a restriction that may be thought-about proportionate: alcohol consumption will not be prohibited, however it’s prohibited in conditions the place its consumption is systematically harmful for oneself and others. The impacts of such laws could be monitored by observing the variety of accidents, for instance. A proper has been restricted, definitely, however the common curiosity prevails for the reason that effectiveness of the measure in relation to an essential goal (the preservation of life) could be demonstrated, and the infringement on rights is minimized by limiting the restrictions as a lot as potential.
In a liberal democracy, freedom is the norm and constraints the exception. It’s as much as the state, when it needs to limit a freedom, to show that it doesn’t go additional than vital to realize its goal and that this goal is successfully achieved18. Moreover, the state is obliged to undertake norms to make sure that all individuals and establishments, each private and non-private, respect this rule19.
Within the case at hand (cash laundering and terrorist financing), and regardless of the assertion that “supervisory authorities have identified specific risk factors,” when one performs the detective wishing to hint again to the supply, one realizes that the opinion in query, relationship from 2019, itself admits that the so-called “competent authorities” wouldn’t have the “knowledge and understanding of these products and assets, which prevents them from carrying out a proper impact assessment.”20
It additionally deflects by referring to a different opinion (sic) from the European Banking Authority, which dates again to… 2014. On this “original” opinion, we discover a moderately laconic evaluation: “the phenomenon of Virtual Currencies being assessed has not existed for a sufficient amount of time for there to be quantitative evidence available of the existing risks, nor is this of the quality required for a robust ranking.”21
In different phrases, the TFR regulation, imposing monitoring of all crypto transfers from one supplier to a different, was constructed on the premise of two reviews. One report said that there was no proof to qualify or quantify the dangers, whereas the opposite admitted that competent authorities lacked the information and understanding to conduct an evaluation.
Subsequently, concluding the paragraph on the “proportionality” of the TFR regulation by stating that “In accordance with the principle of Proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), this regulation does not exceed what is necessary to achieve its objectives” is questionable at finest. For the reason that dangers should not assessed, it appears troublesome to characterize the restriction of rights as “proportionate.”
In his struggle in opposition to FINMA, Alexis Roussel made the identical statement for Switzerland. The Swiss Nationwide Danger Evaluation (NRA) of 201822 relating to cash laundering dangers in crypto signifies, from its very first sentence, that no circumstances of terrorism financing associated to crypto have been recognized, and solely uncommon circumstances of cash laundering. Nevertheless, the following assertion recommends classifying these belongings as “high-risk” by their very nature. Particularly, which means a crypto transaction, even of €10, carries the identical degree of threat as a €100,000 switch to an account in Russia. This equivalence is established with out democratic processes in Switzerland and with none proof.
The 2024 NRA23 doesn’t appear to have made a lot progress and nonetheless admits to missing information to evaluate dangers.
We are able to clearly see a sample emerge: anti-money laundering laws and more and more stringent information assortment necessities are imposed with out official foundation or factual information to justify their implementation.
A extra complete overview has been offered by L0la L33tz in Bitcoin Journal24, permitting us to complement this stock of breaches of probably the most fundamental rigor in Europe, in addition to by sister establishments of Bretton-Woods, the IMF, and the World Financial institution, that are true compasses for international decision-makers.
For instance, in 2023, the annual report for 2021 from the European Union’s FSRB (the European department of the Financial Motion Activity Power, FATF)25, an intergovernmental group established in 1989 to fight cash laundering and terrorism financing, was launched.
The report begins with the next quote: “It is well known that money launderers have abused cryptocurrencies, initially to transfer and conceal profits generated from drug trafficking. Nowadays, their methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated and on a larger scale.”
Sadly, beginning an argument with “it is well known” reads the identical as an essay that begins with “Throughout history, mankind”: it doesn’t exude the rigor of thorough analysis.
The report itself admits {that a} examine might be devoted in 2022 to analyzing cash laundering developments in cryptocurrencies, suggesting that it didn’t exist on the time of writing the report, asserting as an apparent fact what had by no means been studied.
This report devoted to the examine of cash laundering developments in cryptocurrencies has certainly been printed26, but it surely focuses not on the phenomenon itself however moderately on the evaluation of the implementation of laws. Laws that, it’s price noting, are based mostly on unproven cash laundering.
Concerning the examine of details and the sector, the report apparently notes that the danger evaluation “lacks depth.” It additionally observes that almost all of regulators lack the instruments and experience essential to successfully analyze and examine circumstances of cash laundering and terrorism financing associated to “virtual assets.”
The examine additionally takes the identical shortcut because the aforementioned Swiss evaluation: discovering only a few circumstances of cash laundering involving digital belongings, it prefers to conclude that it’s as a result of extra regulation is required, moderately than contemplating that cash laundering will not be overrepresented in these belongings.
As for the IMF, it is no higher: the newest report on public insurance policies associated to crypto-assets (September 2023)27 factors out the shortage of knowledge on cash laundering and terrorism financing dangers, stating that “such impacts have not been specifically studied in relation to crypto-assets.”
The IMF’s World Financial Stability Report for 202428 depends on Chainalysis figures and proposes the determine of $1.1 billion obtained in cryptocurrencies for ransomware globally, which is lower than 0.07% of the crypto market capitalization.
The IMF’s twin establishment, the World Financial institution, doesn’t considerably differ from the aforementioned views. In a 2023 report the establishment signifies that the problem of “Virtual Assets” was not addressed within the Danger Evaluation and calls on public authorities and corporations to supply extra information relating to these belongings.
In its cash laundering-related publications for 202030 and 202231 the World Financial institution merely makes no point out of cryptocurrencies. In its articles32 33 on crypto adoption, the World Financial institution merely sidesteps the problem by redirecting to FATF papers.
We have now come full circle: reviews cite one another, asking for extra readability on the figures, however no person ever conducts the examine itself. We depend on FATF, an unelected physique, not topic to the foundations of a good democracy, particularly relating to proportionality, as I discussed earlier.
The target is not to permit a proportionate struggle in opposition to cash laundering however to boost the requirements of controls yearly, forgetting the explanation why these controls had been applied within the first place.
Furthermore, monetary establishments use the time period “compliance” to emphasise the truth that they adjust to the anticipated management requirements. The targets of effectivity and proportionality are not at stake. There is no such thing as a doubt that if FATF beneficial placing a policeman behind each laptop, legislators would rush to transpose this “best practice” into regulation…
It is not even hidden. Within the regulation voted on April 24 by the European Union34, the justification for imposing new requirements on crypto corporations is totally not targeted on combating cash laundering and its effectiveness. Certainly, since MiCA has not even entered into drive but, and the variation of the TFR textual content to cryptos may be very latest, how may we conduct a posteriori evaluation of the effectiveness of measures that haven’t but had an impact and presumably choose that they should be strengthened?
The reasoning behind the strengthening of controls is in truth a lot easier: “Due to rapid technological developments and the advancement in FATF standards, it is necessary to review that approach.”
It isn’t the evolution of the menace, its evaluation, the means utilized by criminals, or the outcomes of a examine, and many others., however moderately the development in FATF requirements that leads Europe to align itself.
And the subsequent steps are already laid out: “At the same time, advances in innovation, such as the development of the metaverse, provide new avenues for the perpetration of crimes and for the laundering of their proceeds.”
Whereas the preferred metaverses are nonetheless within the experimental stage and barely see a couple of hundred folks connecting concurrently, and because the hype subsides, they’re already being talked about as nothing lower than “avenues” for cash laundering.
For those who’re on the lookout for numbers and analyses, look elsewhere. The imposition of further surveillance requirements depends extra on beliefs and perceptions than on details as a result of nobody dares to oppose as a policymaker, risking being equated with a supporter of terrorism or cash laundering. It is subsequently a real faith, one which turns into virtually unattainable to query at its core.
The digital transition has been drastically useful for states: with the should be banked to make the most of monetary globalization, resulting in the omnipresence of banks, the variety of potential targets to watch has drastically diminished, till it ended up regarding solely a handful of banks. The transition from a world wherein everybody held their money at dwelling to at least one the place, no less than within the OECD, banking is the norm, entails an inevitable monetary intermediation.
On this regard, Bitcoin was an enormous wake-up name as a result of it signifies that the whole monetary regulation of the previous 30 years is out of date, as it’s based mostly on an assumption that’s not legitimate, specifically the necessity for a monetary middleman to conduct transactions within the digital world.
In tomorrow’s world the place corporations will make wallet-to-wallet funds, who will carry out KYC? Will we solely understand the absurdity of the mannequin when half the planet is working to watch the opposite half?
Bitcoin shakes the very foundations of anti-money laundering efforts. And moderately than questioning the regulation and its relevance, each when it comes to effectiveness and when it comes to respect for basic freedoms, we want the trail of blindness, which results in proscribing the usage of a technologically impartial software by arbitrarily impeding innovation, the correct to property, and the safety of change confidentiality, the significance of which for democracy, notably by means of encryption of exchanges, has just lately been reaffirmed by the European Court docket of Human Rights35.
Bitcoin is a canary within the mine. A sign that one thing is slipping away from us, not regarding cryptocurrencies, however regarding the basic freedoms of all residents, threatened by monetary surveillance.
[1] https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 [2] Phil Zimmermann, Why I Wrote PGP, https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html [3] François Sureau additionally alerted us on this regard: (*1*). He discusses the sudden consideration Bitcoin is receiving following Wikileaks’ announcement that they might settle for bitcoin donations. For Satoshi, this consideration grew to become a hazard, and this message might be certainly one of his final earlier than disappearing and preserving his anonymity. [5] US Legal professional’s Workplace Southern District of New York, Founders And CEO Of Cryptocurrency Mixing Service Arrested And Charged With Cash Laundering And Unlicensed Cash Transmitting Offenses, 2024 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/founders-and-ceo-cryptocurrency-mixing-service-arrested-and-charged-money-laundering [6] FBI, Alert on Cryptocurrency Cash Companies Companies, 2024, https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2024/PSA240425 [7] Voir par ex. Florent Latrive, Téléchargement : les logiciels P2P menacés d’interdiction, 3 mai 2006, ; Estelle Dumout, Vers une interdiction des logiciels peer-to-peer n’intégrant pas de DRM ?, 1 novembre 2005, https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/vers-une-interdiction-des-logiciels-peer-to-peer-n-integrant-pas-de-drm-39286440.htm. [8] Voir par ex. The Kazaa Ruling: What It Means, 2 avril 2002, ; Christophe Guillemin, La Cour de cassation néerlandaise confirme la légalité de Kazaa, 22 déc. 2003, https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/la-cour-de-cassation-neerlandaise-confirme-la-legalite-de-kazaa-39134304.htm. [9] Gérard Glaise, La responsabilité des distributeurs de logiciels de peer-to-peer : l’exemple du canari dans la mine?, 14 oct. 2004, https://www.droit-technologie.org/actualites/la-responsabilite-des-distributeurs-de-logiciels-de-peer-to-peer-lexemple-du-canari-dans-la-mine/. [10] Lionel Thoumyre, Peer-to-peer : un « audiopathe » partageur relaxé pour bonne foi, 17 juillet 2006, https://www.juriscom.net/wp-content/documents/da20060717.pdf. [11] Madison Park, 90 p.c of U.S. payments carry traces of cocaine, https://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/cocaine.traces.money/ [12] Damian Williams, The Authorities’s Opposition To Defendant Roman Storm’s Pretrial Motions, 2024, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938.53.0.pdf [13] FinCen, Utility of FinCEN’s Laws to Digital Foreign money Software program Growth and Sure Funding Exercise, 2014, https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/administrative-rulings/application-fincens-regulations-virtual [14] FinCen, Utility of FinCEN’s Laws to Sure Enterprise Fashions Involving Convertible Digital Currencies, 2019, https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf [15] Directive 2018/1972 établissant le Code des communications électroniques européen, artwork. 2. [16] Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne, Communiqué de presse n° 126/11, 24 nov. 2011, à propos de l’affaire Scarlet Prolonged SA, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126fr.pdf. [17] https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/status/1784304037430456383 [18] Anti-Cash Laundering Regulation EU, 2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0365_EN.pdf [19] Jeremy McBride, , « Proportionality and the European Conference on Human Rights », in The precept of Proportionality within the Legal guidelines of Europe, éd. Evelyn Ellis, Hart Publishing, 1999, p. 25 ; Cour EDH. Hertel c. Suisse, 25 août1998, §50, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-62778. [20] https://twitter.com/StachAlex/status/1776914160355303883 [21] Groupe de travail « Article 29 », avis 01/2014, n°3.26 (et jurisprudence citée). [22] Cour EDH, X. et Y v. Pays Bas, 26 mars 1985, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-62162. [23] Joint Opinion of the European Supervisory Authorities on the dangers of cash laundering and terrorist financing affecting the European Union’s monetary sector, 2019, https://register.eiopa.europa.eu/Publications/Joint%20Opinion%20on%20the%20risks%20on%20ML%20and%20TF%20affecting%20the%20EUs%20financial%20sector.pdf [24] EBA Opinion on ‘virtual currencies’, 2014, https://extranet.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/documents/10180/657547/81409b94-4222-45d7-ba3b-7deb5863ab57/EBA-Op-2014-08%20Opinion%20on%20Virtual%20Currencies.pdf?retry=1 [25] Federal Division of Justice and Police of Switzerland, Nationwide Danger Evaluation (NRA):Danger of cash laundering and terrorist financing posed by crypto belongings and crowdfunding, 2018, [26] Federal Division of Justice and Police of Switzerland, Nationwide Danger Evaluation (NRA) Danger of cash laundering and the financing of terrorism by means of crypto belongings, 2024, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/86329.pdf [27] Lola Leetz, EU Parliament Adopts AML Legal guidelines Regulating Bitcoin Primarily based on Questionable Assumptions, 2024 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authorized/eu-parliament-adopts-aml-laws-regulating-bitcoin-based-on-questionable-assumptions [28] Council of Europe, Annual Report 2021 MoneyVal, https://rm.coe.int/0900001680aad1fc [29] Council of Europe, Cash Laundering And Terrorist Financing Dangers In The World of Digital Property, 2023, https://rm.coe.int/0900001680abdec4 [30] Financial Stability Board, MF-FSB Synthesis Paper: Insurance policies for Crypto-Property, 2023 https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R070923-1.pdf [31] FMI, World Financial Stability Report, The Final Mile : Financial Vulnerabilities and Dangers, 2024, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2024/04/16/global-financial-stability-report-april-2024 [32] World Financial institution Group, Classes Discovered from the First Era of Cash Laundering and Terrorist Financing Danger Assessments, 2023, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2e1f3f32-57ad-43cb-bb8e-d1aab5636be4/content [33] World Financial institution Group, Matthew Collin, Illicit Financial Flows: Ideas, Measurement, and Proof, 2019, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d2f7fa07-a285-5c5b-880e-25002a4951fb/content [34] World Financial institution Group, Nationwide Assessments of Cash Laundering Dangers: Studying from Eight Superior International locations’ NRAs, 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b860c956-659e-5005-93c9-4f06993c37ab/content [35] World Financial institution Group, Crypto-Property Exercise across the World Evolution and Macro-Financial Drivers, 2022,
