Tornado Cash Developer Found Guilty of Laundering $1.2 Billion of Crypto (wired.com) 95
A panel of judges in the Netherlands has found Alexey Pertsev, one of the developers behind crypto anonymizing tool Tornado Cash, guilty of money laundering. Wired: Over the course of two days in March, the Russian national was tried on the allegation that the tool he developed had allowed criminals -- among them hackers with ties to North Korea -- to freely launder $1.2 billion in stolen cryptocurrency. "The management of Tornado Cash welcomed the bank robbers with open arms," the prosecutors wrote in a March court filing.
Dutch judges sentenced Pertsev to five years and four months in prison on Tuesday, which was the term requested by prosecutors in the case. "With Tornado Cash, the defendant created a shortcut for financing crimes and terrorism," said the court in a statement, translated from Dutch. "He chose to look away from the abuse and did not take any responsibility." The purpose of tools like Tornado Cash, known as crypto mixers or tumblers, is to mask the origin and destination of users' coins. Funds belonging to many parties are pooled, jumbled up, and spat out into brand-new wallets, by which time it is no longer clear whose crypto is whose. These services are promoted as a way to improve the level of privacy available to crypto users, but have been readily co-opted for the purpose of money laundering.
On August 8, 2022, Tornado Cash was sanctioned in the United States, making it illegal for US citizens to use the service. Any product that "indiscriminately facilitates anonymous transactions," wrote the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, represents a "threat to US national security." Two days later, Pertsev was arrested in the Netherlands, where he resided. Money laundering activity, the Dutch prosecutors claim, accounted for more than 30 percent of the funds that passed through Tornado Cash between 2019 and 2022. [...] Pertsev built his defense on the argument that Tornado Cash, which remains in operation, is under nobody's control -- including his own -- as a piece of software that runs on the Ethereum blockchain, a distributed network of computers. Further reading: Coinbase Employees and Ethereum Backers Sue US Treasury Over Tornado Cash Sanctions (September 2022).
Dutch judges sentenced Pertsev to five years and four months in prison on Tuesday, which was the term requested by prosecutors in the case. "With Tornado Cash, the defendant created a shortcut for financing crimes and terrorism," said the court in a statement, translated from Dutch. "He chose to look away from the abuse and did not take any responsibility." The purpose of tools like Tornado Cash, known as crypto mixers or tumblers, is to mask the origin and destination of users' coins. Funds belonging to many parties are pooled, jumbled up, and spat out into brand-new wallets, by which time it is no longer clear whose crypto is whose. These services are promoted as a way to improve the level of privacy available to crypto users, but have been readily co-opted for the purpose of money laundering.
On August 8, 2022, Tornado Cash was sanctioned in the United States, making it illegal for US citizens to use the service. Any product that "indiscriminately facilitates anonymous transactions," wrote the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, represents a "threat to US national security." Two days later, Pertsev was arrested in the Netherlands, where he resided. Money laundering activity, the Dutch prosecutors claim, accounted for more than 30 percent of the funds that passed through Tornado Cash between 2019 and 2022. [...] Pertsev built his defense on the argument that Tornado Cash, which remains in operation, is under nobody's control -- including his own -- as a piece of software that runs on the Ethereum blockchain, a distributed network of computers. Further reading: Coinbase Employees and Ethereum Backers Sue US Treasury Over Tornado Cash Sanctions (September 2022).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Instead of keeping the global elite from stealing the wealth of nations money laundering laws are used to consolidate power over money.
Like North Korea, mentioned in the summary? There isn't anywhere near $1.2bn worth of legitimate need for crypto, these services are purely to help criminals get away with their crimes. The people people running them, and profiting indirectly from those crimes, are no better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They also do this in America. If you go into a bank every week and deposit just under $10K in cash (I think it's 10k, or whatever the amount that gets flagged when it's over) your account could definitely come under investigation. A one off here and there won't but consistently is (imo rightly) a red flag for banking. They're eventually going to have to ask questions for their own liability under the law.
Of course a case could be made if you are managing personal accounts with enough cash to flag a money
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to handle $10k/week to get flagged.
Every transaction $10k or higher is reported by the banks to the Feds. What they do with that report is where it can turn ugly. Generally, no, a single transaction will just be noted and forgotten but it _will_ be noted and is now "on your permanent record" in case other stuff comes up in the future.
When I transfer cash to my checking account from my investment account, I never send myself more than $9k unless it's for something specific like a new car or
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but from I have read about this is that enough transactions "just under line" will also arouse suspicion, especially cash deposits (they think you are dealing drugs).
For you it's pretty obviously above board, you have your investment statements, 1099 and it's a bank to bank transfer so pretty easy to sus out what's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's your regular 1040 paycheck then it's already in the system and literally no one cares.
If those are outside money from some other source that hasn't already been reported then yes you have a big ass list of transactions reported by the bank to the Feds.
Re: (Score:2)
My transactions tend to vary between 5k and 9k on no particular schedule but roughly once a month. Yes, a bunch of $9999 transactions would trip an alert, too. I'm sure a lot of other things also would. But for sure absolutely every $10k+ transaction does trigger an alert.
At the end of the day, you gotta live your life and if you're not doing anything criminal then worst case you might get a chat with the FBI one afternoon but more likely they'll quietly examine your entire life and go away. The biggest
Re: (Score:2)
I said the exact opposite of that.
Re: (Score:2)
For whatever it's worth, I've never been contacted by anyone about it (i.e., the Feds). The bank just warns me.
Sometimes even they'll do a wink-wink nudge-nudge and say that $9k is not reported, which honestly makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
I do imagine that some federal agents have gone through my finances with a comb looking for evidence of laundering, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not reporting to the authorities, but the banks themselves taking action for fear of being fined (a fear that is justified). The banks sh
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It's annoying. US expats also have onerous reporting requirements such as reporting overseas bank accounts and assets and stock.
It's annoying because you know this was made to catch the uber-rich who were hiding their money in Switzerland (these days the Caribean), but small timers living abroad have to do all this reporting as if they were those billionaires that are trying to hide money from the IRS and who still live in the US.
Also, foreign banks treat US citizens differently because of FATCA requi
Why governments control money and exchange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep trying to assert that without the control of money, which they literally do not have (The Federal Reserve controls monetary policy, and ergo, the printing of money), that they could not deficit spend, which is absurd, because they, like any other entity, can issue bonds- or IOUs, that people may buy.
The government is allowed to issue bonds, not print money.
If nobody buys those bonds, then they cannot borrow money. They are however allowed to
Re: (Score:3)
How about you put some meat on your conspiracy claims?
My conspiracy claims that governments want to control their money supply? Well, let's see. The US Constitution Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 2. says the congress has the power to borrow, and Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 5 says the government has the sole power to coin money and regulate it's value and punish counterfeiters. Then there is Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 7 saying money cannot be withdrawn from the Treasury without force of law. My favorite and probably Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1. which states that no state can issue bills of
Re: (Score:2)
My conspiracy claims that governments want to control their money supply?
The US Government does not control its money supply.
Well, let's see. The US Constitution Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 2. says the congress has the power to borrow, and Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 5 says the government has the sole power to coin money and regulate it's value and punish counterfeiters.
Both of these are true. The power to print and regulate money is indeed vested in the US Government (where the fuck else *would* it be?)
However, the US Government has not had control of its money supply since since 1913, with the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
The Federal Reserve is prohibited from directly purchasing US Treasuries (it must make purchases on the open market- i.e., purchase those securities from people who bought them from the Tr
Re: (Score:2)
The US Government does not control its money supply.
Yes, you keep repeating this. You're trying way too hard to trade on some kind of false "distance" the Federal Reserve pretends to have from the US Government when in reality there is no distance and it's all simply hand waving. As I mentioned the Fed's board of governors is appointed by POTUS and so is the chairman of the board all subject to Senate approval. None of that screams independence because, if it isn't obvious, the those people can be fired if they don't do what the president wants them to. The
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you keep repeating this. You're trying way too hard to trade on some kind of false "distance" the Federal Reserve pretends to have from the US Government when in reality there is no distance and it's all simply hand waving. As I mentioned the Fed's board of governors is appointed by POTUS and so is the chairman of the board all subject to Senate approval. None of that screams independence because, if it isn't obvious, the those people can be fired if they don't do what the president wants them to. The Federal Reserve is the US central bank, despite you wanting to tap dance around that fact.
You're trying to generate issues in response to what I say without any knowledge.
1) The board of governors is in fact nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate.
However, they elected for terms longer than that of either of those involved in their selection and confirmation. They're more akin to a court judge.
2) The board of governors doesn't have the final say in monetary policy, the FOMC does- and it's selected by the private owners of the various Reserve Banks.
3) The POTUS cannot (at thi
Re: (Score:2)
weak oversight by the Government
You're convinced of this and I disagree. So, let's discuss what they actually do rather than your very specious assertions of independence. Let's cut to the chase. If the Fed is so independent why do you think they are monetizing the debt at the behest of Uncle Sam ? Why not push back and demand the government cut spending? Do you think it's healthy to rack up a trillion in debt, completely due to deficit spending, every three months?
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's discuss what they actually do rather than your very specious assertions of independence.
There's nothing specious about it.
I've shown you the ways they're disconnected from government control. Try to demonstrate a way in which there is any.
The strongest claim you have, is that the board of governors are politically appointed positions.
But then again- so are judges.
The same mitigations designed to make judge's politically independent were purposefully used to make the Fed independent. It was always a design goal for it to be as independent as possible.
The reason the Fed is specifically disa
Re: (Score:2)
I've shown you the ways they're disconnected from government control. Try to demonstrate a way in which there is any.
The entire board of governors and the chairman is appointed by the government. To call that "disconnected" is dreaming. Those are the executive members of the Federal Reserve. They make the decisions and that's easy to demonstrate; it's not like they hide these facts.
No, they don't get fired, what happens is that they simply don't get reappointed when they have displeased the current administration. POTUS doesn't want to fire them because any resulting financial instability that creates would get blamed o
Re: (Score:2)
The entire board of governors and the chairman is appointed by the government. To call that "disconnected" is dreaming. Those are the executive members of the Federal Reserve. They make the decisions and that's easy to demonstrate; it's not like they hide these facts.
There is no distinction between the Governors and the Chairman. The Chairman is elected by the Governors. It's not even a statutory position.
And no, it's not dreaming.
Judges are appointed by the Government as well. They are also disconnected. As long as those appointed do not answer to those who appointed them, then there is a separation. That is (at least for now) the case at the Fed.
If we get a second Trump term, we may end up finding out that's not the case. We'll see.
But no, it's not dreaming. Your
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you keep repeating this. You're trying way too hard to trade on some kind of false "distance" the Federal Reserve pretends to have from the US Government when in reality there is no distance and it's all simply hand waving. As I mentioned the Fed's board of governors is appointed by POTUS and so is the chairman of the board all subject to Senate approval. None of that screams independence because, if it isn't obvious, the those people can be fired if they don't do what the president wants them to. The Federal Reserve is the US central bank, despite you wanting to tap dance around that fact.
These people cannot be fired. Later on, you'll reframe this to say they can't be reappointed. This is because you found out that I was right. This is just another way you've subtly altered your argument to try to keep it relevant after I've shown it to be wrong.
I already pointed out the Federal Reserve Act (doubt you even knew it before I told you) and we've already discussed how the Fed is controlled by the government, which you keep ignoring as if those pesky facts are going to go away. It's a partnership with the banking trusts. It's technically a corporate-government partnership with the Government maintaining executive control.
You did point it out, but you showed a fundamental lack of understanding of it.
The partnership is required, because the Government has the sole power to do things the Central Bank needs to be able to do.
The Government, however, does not maintain ex
Re: (Score:2)
These people cannot be fired.
They definitely can be fired, but as I mentioned . In fact, the Federal Reserve Act itself even says this "Each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President."
This is just another way you've subtly altered your argument
Simply untrue. I've been saying the same things since the beginning.
The Government, however, does not maintain executive control.
Besides appointing the leadership that is. That's the "executive" part. Do you not think they appoint folks with the US Government's goals in mind?
No, Reagan could not have.
Did you not just see the exa
Re: (Score:2)
Judges are appointed by the Government as well.
Supreme court judges have to be impeached, they are not "fired" but the Federal Reserve Act specifically says the appointed governors can, in fact, be fired. It says it in black and white "Each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President."
As mentioned previously, POTUS is legally prevented from firing them.
Reference needed. Where in the law does it say that and what does it say exactly? What supercedes the text of the Federal Reserve Act that specifically says the e
Re: (Score:2)
Quote the statute as if I didn't say that, and then act like the statute doesn't say that.
You're fucking pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
You can keep acting like I didn't already demonstrate how you're trying to expand the meaning of words to fit your narrative, but anyone who can read knows that I did.
You're fucking lame, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at where we're at now. You've essentially, in your own words, disproven everything you said.
I am glad you learned something though
Re: (Score:2)
You're fucking pathetic.
Yes, you're so calm and even tempered. This is the kind of things winners say, for sure, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
stupid fucker
This is how debate winners talk, right? You mad?
I am glad you learned something though
I learn you have more spare time than brain cells.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how debate winners talk, right? You mad?
There's a way a debate winner talks? What kind of stupid fallacious reasoning is this?
Dumbfuck, lol.
No, I'm not mad. I'm thoroughly amused.
I learn you have more spare time than brain cells.
Nope. You learned how the Federal Reserve system and government funding works- you're welcome!
Remember: You started with this [slashdot.org] stupid fucking comment- its ignorance dripping all over the thread that followed.
Re: (Score:2)
You show me that you're smart enough to google what the BEP is, but not smart enough to see that it only prints currency upon the order of the Federal Reserve, and the only thing it prints for the US Government are Treasury Securities, which are not legal tender
You have so many little factoids swimming in your head, but you're too fucking stupid to see how it all ties together.
You're literally arguing that the Federal Reserve
Re: (Score:2)
Dumbfuck, lol. No, I'm not mad. I'm thoroughly amused
Yeah, suuure, that's what it is. Being spitting mad and cursing really makes you seem jolly.
stupid fucking comment- its ignorance dripping all over the thread that followed.
I'm satisfied to let others decide who's ignorant and who got schooled.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, and you're fucking stupid.
Yes, yes, you're calm and rational, not mad at all, I see that. These are all just clinical observations from your vast knowledge. I'm sure we're all impressed. *YAWN*
You're literally trying to argue that the Federal Reserve has something to do with Federal Debt.
Yes, I forgot, it must be the magic debt fairy that's monetizing another trillion every three months. Do you curse at the debt clock too? How about clouds? Children in the front yard?
You're morons. Now dispose of yourselves quietly. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, suuure, that's what it is. Being spitting mad and cursing really makes you seem jolly.
Do you equate swearing with anger? That seems like a you problem, not a me problem.
When I call you a fucking moron, it's not because I'm angry, it's because I think the word "moron" just isn't enough to describe your stupid ass.
I'm satisfied to let others decide who's ignorant and who got schooled.
You mean you think people are going to read your dumbfuck interpretation of how the US monetary system works?
Ya, the US *borrowed* from China. Ya, the Government prints fat stacks of money to pay its bills!
Your legal theories on the independence of the Fed are not shared by anyon
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, you're calm and rational, not mad at all, I see that. These are all just clinical observations from your vast knowledge. I'm sure we're all impressed. *YAWN*
Here you go again trying to equate word usage with anger over the internet. Fallacious, and stupid.
Yes, I forgot, it must be the magic debt fairy that's monetizing another trillion every three months. Do you curse at the debt clock too? How about clouds? Children in the front yard?
Yup. Every entity that purchases a T-Bill from the Treasury. Which funny enough- is just about everyone in the world except for the fucking Federal Reserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody characterizes the issuance of those bonds as "printing money", except for talking heads on TV, and politicians.
These are factually inaccurate depictions of the process designed to make it look a certain way that's favorable to his political viewpoint. Another word for it- it's spin.
If you bought his bullshit, you're as fucking stupid as he is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Government control over money is very weak, at best.
There are criminal laws against things like money laundering. This isn't some exertion of control over the common man for teh sake of all the above- it's to prevent money laundering, which is used to fund organized crime and terrorism.
Monetary policy is not under the control of the Government- by the Government's own fucking design.
It seem to me that you're conflating a lot of
Re: (Score:3)
The Government can deficit spend because it can issue bonds. Any private entity can do this as well.
The only difference, is that the Government is guaranteed** not to default on them.
Whether the bonds were payable in USD, or BTC, it would make difference.
The Government does not force us to buy its bonds, and thus continue financing its deficit spending. We do it because we're greedy, and we want the interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the idea that they couldn't deficit spend without control is nonsense.
Well, historically, fiat money printers have always gone to zero. Furthermore, I'm talking about the USA, not another country. In this country we are running a trillion dollar deficit every three months. So... nonsense? I don't think so.
The Government can deficit spend because it can issue bonds.
Derp. Yes, that's partially correct. Now, answer me this: why doesn't the government simply print $10M USD for every American and illegal fence-jumper? Why not just simply print the entire US budget and eliminate taxes? Let's see if you know the answer that extremely simple
Re: (Score:3)
Well, historically, fiat money printers have always gone to zero. Furthermore, I'm talking about the USA, not another country. In this country we are running a trillion dollar deficit every three months. So... nonsense? I don't think so.
You didn't connect the dots.
You're saying deficit spending is connected to the treasury's ability to print money, and that is incorrect. It is a falsehood.
Derp. Yes, that's partially correct. Now, answer me this: why doesn't the government simply print $10M USD for every American and illegal fence-jumper? Why not just simply print the entire US budget and eliminate taxes? Let's see if you know the answer that extremely simple question. Why not print infinite money?
No, that is completely correct.
The Government is not in control of how much money is printed.
It is a fact, that the US government is funded through bonds, period, full stop. It cannot even print money to pay its own bills.
That is the why we have debt ceiling crises.
Private companies cannot dictate what currency they accept because of legal tender laws. Private companies do issue bonds, by the way. A bond is essentially a debt security, where the issuer (which can be a government or a corporation) borrows money from investors for a defined period of time at a predetermined interest rate. There is nothing magical about it. It's simply well-definied fixed-rate loan. I'm telling you this because you don't seem to know the slightest thing about the words/terminology you are using.
I literally said private companies issue bonds. Why are you repeating what I said?
Wha
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't connect the dots.
Condescension doesn't produce any usable facts nor is it a very impressive debate strategy.
You're saying deficit spending is connected to the treasury's ability to print money, and that is incorrect. It is a falsehood.
The US government must sell T-bills (or print bank notes) to finance it's deficit. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is part of the US Treasury. So, either way: it's the Treasury that's the primary funding mechanism behind the more than one trillion in debt the government now racks up every three months. Actually printing paper money is simply out of style. So, it's T-bills. You know the "T" stands for Treasury, r
Re: (Score:3)
Unapproved Launderers (Score:1)
Yep, this is what you get for being an unapproved money launderer. Money laundering is reserved for State Actors and governments.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that the developer's "crime" here was publishing source code.
The service is not a company - it's a Digital asset on the Ethereum blockchain governed by a DAO. As a dev he might hold some voting tokens in that DAO,
but he doesn't have control of it - No person controls the protocol. Changes are voted on by the DAO's token holders.
It's worth pointing out that a hacker even took over the DAO [coindesk.com] and maintained control of it for a time by tricking voters into approving an update that had malicious code
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
i question how decentralised something is when it can be controlled by a single party
The single party Only got control by deceiving voters who Failed to adequately review the proposal before voting for it.
It would be like if you were voting on a proposed 10000-page amendment to your State constitution, but the drafter concealed a clause in the text on page 697 that would guarantee they could pass any proposal they wanted next round, Then next round they invoked a proposal that gave them a supermajority of
Writing code isn't the problem (Score:2)
People don't launder money for fun. They do it because the money is the result of a crime.
Now, I guess you could argue that crime should be legal. Or to step back that *some* crimes should be legal, but I double you'd argue that all crime should be legal. And if I, say, stole all the money from your bank account and laundered it through Tornado Cash you'd be signing a different tune right now. Especially because
less than 5 1/2 years in a Dutch prison? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah seems like a pretty good salary, even if he only got to keep 0.1%
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah seems like a pretty good salary, even if he only got to keep 0.1%
$1,200,000,000 * .0001 = $120k. Does that really seems like a good salary for 5 1/2 years (spent in prison, no less?) Wal-mart pays more than that.
Re: less than 5 1/2 years in a Dutch prison? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you'll be forced to eat dutch food for 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, I read 0.1 as .01, and I feel damned stupid right now. Thanks for the correction.
He's doing it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to launder money, you open a foundation. Then set up hundreds of shell corporations and bank accounts and shuffle through all of that before finally depositing to the foundation. Ask your politician's wife for details.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, you need to find a guy named Donny and "invest" in his golf course(s).
Ford is responsible for ATM heists using F150s (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. You pay taxes. Your government does evil things with some of that money. You don't do anything to stop your government from doing those evil things. Therefore you are guilty of those evil things your government does.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if the sole purpose of the F150 was to steal ATMs, a case could be made for your point...
Is there a legitimate purpose to a crypto currency mixer service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
OH, let me try our favorite hobby again. Its like if Ford made F150's to steal ATMS because without stealing the ATM's the cameras on them would let everyone know when I was withdrawing money, So I steal ATMS, break them open and withdrawal only my money, then put them back with a note detailin
Re: (Score:2)
So the problem is, a currency was created to remove governmental control, but was done such a dumb way that it made all transactions public, so a mixer that hides that and helps facilitate money laundering is needed?
The web was built on HTTP in such a dumb way that made all transmissions public, so a certificate provider that hides those transmissions and helps facilitate [insert random illegal activity that can be hidden through encryption] is needed?
I hope you realize the battle over export restriction of secure encryption technology was won against the US authoritarians a few decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you publish your full bank history online for others to see? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Please show me where it's available for review.
Not online, but my bank history is available for full review pending court orders and is overseen by a bank that follows the laws of the country, including detecting and reporting of suspicious money laundering activities.
Oh and my bank doesn't exist for the sole purpose of hiding a financial trail, unlike this service.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't use cash for anything because, if you do, your daddy government won't be able to surveil your activities.
Oh and my bank doesn't exist for the sole purpose of hiding a financial trail, unlike this service.
This is true in the same way that end-to-end encryption exists only to conceal child sex trafficking activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that 2008-style meltdowns seem to be a weekly occurence in the Crypto space.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
put a name to the prediction so we can come and remind you how wildy off the mark you were ten years down the line
Ten years down the line this asshole will still be posting this same rant, probably with no edits in between.
Say it ain't so! (Score:2)
Dunning-Krugerrands used for money laundering? Noooo, unpossible!
Cash (Score:1)
```
Any product that "indiscriminately facilitates anonymous transactions," wrote the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, represents a "threat to US national security."
```
They know they're describing cash - US Dollar notes, right? Or any fungible/privacy-preserving current money.
Of course they do. The Programmable Surveillable Money (PSM) specter looms darkly.
No wonder Trump just got $100M in crypto donations. Not everybody wants their entire life in Genocide Joe's database (especially not the M
JPMorganChase: Only $1.2 billion laundered? (Score:2)
That's rookie numbers. You got to pump it up.
I'm shocked (Score:2)
That they used crypto for money laundering. I mean, what was it created for?
Oh, yeah, tax cheating, money laundering, and buying illegal items.
Anonymous transactions (Score:1)
So CASH is a threat to national security. Good to know.