Here are some of the summaries I made:
A. CVC Mixing As a Class of Transactions of Primary Money Laundering Concern
Question 1: Is the scope of the recordkeeping requirement appropriate?
Response to Question 1:
There are several significant issues with the scope of the recordkeeping requirements including legal and regulatory concerns, practical and ethical considerations, and feasibility.
First, there are several concerns regarding legal and regulatory factors. These include overreach of the agency’s regulatory mandates, including the fact that these actions likely constitute legislative powers. These requirements could exceed the boundaries of “reasonable statutory authority” under the PATRIOT Act. Furthermore, they are so broad and poorly defined that they fail to demonstrate sufficient evidence that they are not “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Moreover, the all-encompassing nature of these surveillance requirements also make them a clear infringement on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This also makes them inherently unable to provide sufficient due process, under the Fifth Amendment. Finally, attempting to enforce these requirements may be viewed as extraterritorial overreach, since these requirements will clearly affect international finance as well as domestic.
Second, there are practical and ethical considerations regarding the recordkeeping requirements. This includes weighing the effectiveness of the proposed requirements in enhancing AML/FT efforts against the substantial burden of financial institutions. Additionally, these stringent requirements could discourage legitimate use of CVCs and stifle innovation.
Third, there are numerous technical feasibility hurdles that the proposed recordkeeping requirements do not address. These include the inherent pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions as well as challenges related to identifying participants in a CVC transaction, the decentralized nature of the blockchain making enforcement across the network impossible, potential conflict with existing data privacy laws, and potential technological workarounds and evasion.
EMH /
npub1yq…hxw0c
2023-12-08 21:12:23
in reply to nevent1q…8scj
Author Public Key
npub1yqyj6wm2s356xf2c3lv6we3508hczp4sza7wegeraru8lhl7mx7qrhxw0cPublished at
2023-12-08 21:12:23Event JSON
{
"id": "1f48acceeba8aabfeb615d4fcd4d4aaf154be2871ce61f56928598a147bef3a5",
"pubkey": "20092d3b6a8469a325588fd9a7663479ef8106b0177ceca323e8f87fdffed9bc",
"created_at": 1702069943,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d01a460ecdd70710419ce8b47724bb37813e870705b9362a771399bf8b736d86",
"wss://offchain.pub/",
"root"
]
],
"content": "Here are some of the summaries I made:\n\nA. CVC Mixing As a Class of Transactions of Primary Money Laundering Concern\nQuestion 1: Is the scope of the recordkeeping requirement appropriate?\n\nResponse to Question 1:\n\nThere are several significant issues with the scope of the recordkeeping requirements including legal and regulatory concerns, practical and ethical considerations, and feasibility. \n\nFirst, there are several concerns regarding legal and regulatory factors. These include overreach of the agency’s regulatory mandates, including the fact that these actions likely constitute legislative powers. These requirements could exceed the boundaries of “reasonable statutory authority” under the PATRIOT Act. Furthermore, they are so broad and poorly defined that they fail to demonstrate sufficient evidence that they are not “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Moreover, the all-encompassing nature of these surveillance requirements also make them a clear infringement on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This also makes them inherently unable to provide sufficient due process, under the Fifth Amendment. Finally, attempting to enforce these requirements may be viewed as extraterritorial overreach, since these requirements will clearly affect international finance as well as domestic. \n\nSecond, there are practical and ethical considerations regarding the recordkeeping requirements. This includes weighing the effectiveness of the proposed requirements in enhancing AML/FT efforts against the substantial burden of financial institutions. Additionally, these stringent requirements could discourage legitimate use of CVCs and stifle innovation. \n\nThird, there are numerous technical feasibility hurdles that the proposed recordkeeping requirements do not address. These include the inherent pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions as well as challenges related to identifying participants in a CVC transaction, the decentralized nature of the blockchain making enforcement across the network impossible, potential conflict with existing data privacy laws, and potential technological workarounds and evasion. ",
"sig": "da2cc8e6dc54cbe4b621fe057eb0b1c84b2443222274e6aaf5fad615db8a43f350633e8682f6364e33ec4201366ecaf21fc457681e781c17c21fffd134990623"
}