Podcasts about Bank Secrecy Act

with @MinarikLaw @EMinSF @rhhackettImagine waking up one day to find your bank account frozen. No warning. No explanation. No recourse.This is not a thought experiment. It's a real situation. And it's happened not just to crypto companies and their founders, but to ordinary people who are just trying to live their lives. That includes our guest today, who learned firsthand what it means to be “debanked.”In this episode, we talk about the unseen algorithms that monitor people's accounts, the ramifications of the Bank Secrecy Act, and how crypto and decentralized finance may offer a much-needed check — and safety net — against the opaque systems of traditional finance.Joining us are:Uniswap Labs's Chief Legal Officer Katherine Minarik, who shares her personal story of being debanked and what it taught her.a16z crypto Finance and Operations Partner Em Westerhold, who helps founders navigate these issues, and who has tracked dozens of instances of debanking across our own portfolio.A big thank you to Katherine for trusting us to share her story, which you can read a first-hand account of in an op-ed she contributed to a16zcrypto.com earlier this year. Find that and more below.Timestamps:(0:00) Introduction(2:03) The Problem of Debanking(5:58) Debanking: A Personal Story(7:33) Understanding the Bank Secrecy Act(11:53) The Information Vacuum(16:55) The Impact on Crypto Companies(20:07) Addressing Skeptics(22:07) Banks: Good vs. Bad(27:35) The Scariest Moment(36:17) "Operation Chokepoint 2.0"(38:08) History of the Bank Secrecy Act(44:04) Security Theater(45:31) What Would You Change?(48:45) The Impact of Financial Consolidation(49:30) Crypto as Banking Solution(53:02) Is Debanking Still Happening?(58:35) Unresolved Mysteries(1:01:47) One More Debanking Story(1:08:07) Conspiracy or Coincidence?(1:09:39) It Shouldn't Be This Hard(1:11:18) Out From Under the SEC's Cloud(1:14:23) The Urgent Need for Legislation(1:17:26) Possible Tech Futures(1:19:33) Advice for Founders(1:22:04) Final ThoughtsResources:Anyone can get debanked. DeFi is a critical safety net by Katherine Minarik (a16z crypto, February 2025)This op-ed is part of a bigger package of crypto policy views found here: “U.S. as the crypto capital: What it would take”Debanking: What you need to know (a16z crypto, December 2024)End the era of mass financial surveillance by Grant Rabenn (a16z crypto, February 2025)As a reminder, none of the content should be taken as investment, business, legal, or tax advice; please see a16z.com/disclosures for more important information, including a link to a list of our investments.

In May 2025, Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, got hacked. Or did they? It was more like a near-miss. But while we might wipe our brows in relief over this latest mishap, it doesn't bode well for the future of cryptocurrency, which is currently unregulated, uninsured, and just waiting for the next big catastrophe to leave investors crying in their collective beers over their lost millions.Join us for a tour of some of most disastrous crypto hacks of yesteryear like Mt Gox and Bybit, and what we see coming for the future of crypto. Hint: It's not pretty.ResourcesCoinbase: Protecting Our Customers - Standing Up to ExtortionistsThe Story of Mt. Gox: ExplainedBank Secrecy Act (BSA)What Is Crypto KYC and Why Do Exchanges Need It in 2025?The ByBit Heist and the Future of U.S. Crypto RegulationTop 10 Cryptos to Invest In May 2025.Send us a textReal Talk About MarketingAn Acxiom podcast where we discuss marketing made better, bringing you real...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

31st March: Blockchain DXB Podcast

AI Takeover Series – Episode Fully Generated by NotebookLM This episode is part of Blockchain DXB AI series Listen to Blockchain DXB podcast to host opinion

Legislators and regulators are strongly focused on policy related to payment stablecoins, most recently with the passage of the Genius Act in the Senate Banking Committee. On this episode of the ABA Banking Journal Podcast — presented by nCino — ABA's Brooke Ybarra and Kirsten Sutton discuss the current policy and technology landscape on stablecoins. Among other topics, they talk about: How stablecoins work and why people are interested in this kind of digital asset. Use cases for payment stablecoins, such as cross-border payments. Challenges that stablecoins may pose for today's anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act framework. The outlook in Congress for the Stable Act in the House and the Genius Act in the Senate and what these bills would do. Key principles for thinking about stablecoins, including economic effects, disintermediation of financial institutions, regulatory arbitrage and consumer protection. How ABA is engaging on Capitol Hill and with regulatory agencies on stablecoin issues.

Alex Thorn talks with Jake Chervinsky, Chief Legal Officer at Variant, about the presidential working group on digital assets, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and how Bank Secrecy Act and money transmission laws can be an existential threat to crypto. Alex also talks to Beimnet Abebe (Galaxy Trading) about markets. This episode was recorded on Wednesday, March 5, 2025. ++ Follow us on Twitter, @glxyresearch, and read our research at www.galaxy.com/research/ to learn more! This podcast, and the information contained herein, has been provided to you by Galaxy Digital Holdings LP and its affiliates (“Galaxy Digital”) solely for informational purposes. View the full disclaimer at www.galaxy.com/disclaimer-galaxy-brains-podcast/

Harsha & Stephan discuss the challenges Bitcoin businesses face regarding regulation, particularly the tightening KYC and AML requirements. Harsha highlights the implications of these regulations on the Bitcoin ecosystem and the role of custodians. The discussion also touches on the evolving regulatory landscape, the impact of political administrations on crypto regulation, and the future of stablecoins. Harsha emphasizes the need for clarity in regulations and the importance of maintaining a balance between compliance and the freedom that Bitcoin offers. The conversation also highlights the challenges developers face in creating tools that respect user privacy while navigating regulatory landscapes. They conclude by exploring the potential future of Bitcoin upgrades and the importance of lobbying for less restrictive regulations to foster industry growth.Takeaways

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/Kyle S. Hauptman Designated as NCUA Board ChairmanALEXANDRIA, Va. (Jan. 22, 2025) – President Donald J. Trump has  National Credit Union Administration Vice Chairman Kyle S. Hauptman as the thirteenth Chairman of the NCUA Board.“I am deeply honored that President Trump has asked me to serve as Chairman of NCUA,” Chairman Hauptman said. “I look forward to leading the agency's dedicated professionals and working with my Board colleagues to create a regulatory structure that promotes growth, opportunity, and innovation within the credit union system.“My priorities as Chairman include:Re-examining the current NCUA budgeting process.Convening groups of NCUA employees to identify achievable internal efficiencies to reduce unnecessary frictions in the agency's operations.Promoting the appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for NCUA employees. One goal is enhancing productivity, but it's also true that regulators who use technologies are more apt to understand why the regulated use them.Focusing on true financial inclusion, which means removing barriers to de novo credit unions and removing the ‘pain points' that have led to fewer and fewer small credit unions. NCUA should be mindful that the only people who think compliance is easy are those that don't have to do it.Codifying our procedures to protect Americans from regulation-by-enforcement. For example, no enforcement action should ever set - even clarify - policy. In America and other free societies, the sequence is: set speed limits, then give speeding tickets (no one has any obligation to be aware of someone else's ticket).Making clear that credit unions and their members are best positioned to assess their communities' climate risks.Re-assessing NCUA policies that may, even inadvertently, dissuade credit unions from serving low-income areas. This includes language around overdraft policies, particularly for credit unions located in states with especially punitive government late fees/penalties.Right-sizing credit unions' obligations where possible under the Bank Secrecy Act, including NCUA's regulations surrounding Suspicious Activity Reports.”

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How does a respected financial institution turn into a criminal operation? In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, host Michael Volkov dives into the record-breaking $3 billion settlement between TD Bank and the Department of Justice over pervasive violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws. Highlighting TD Bank's systemic failures, Michael explores how the bank's compliance and oversight lapses led to criminal conduct within its operations, making it a case study on the dangers of prioritizing growth over legal compliance. From failed AML programs to enabling money laundering on a massive scale, this episode sheds light on the regulatory crackdown TD Bank now faces.Hear him discuss: TD Bank's $3 billion penalty sets a new high for banking compliance cases. In yet another reminder of the scope of Justice Department enforcement powers, and an important demonstration of the risks of non-compliance, the Justice Department and relevant banking agencies announced a $3 billion settlement with TD Bank companies to resolve systemic and pervasive Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") and money laundering violations.TD Bank's internal culture sidelined AML compliance, leading to massive oversights, including unmonitored transactions worth $18.3 trillion from 2018 to 2024. TD Bank enforced a “flat-cost paradigm,” restricting the compliance budget, which prevented updates and adaptations needed to meet new risk levels.TDBUSH pleaded guilty to causing TDBNA to fail to maintain an AML program that complies with the BSA and to fail to file accurate Currency Transaction Reports ("CTRs").Despite multiple warnings from internal audits and third-party consultants, the bank maintained its flawed AML protocols without significant action.TD Bank earned the ignominious record: TD Bank is the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures, and the first US bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. With this settlement, TD Bank joins a list of high-profile compliance failures alongside companies like Wells Fargo and Wirecard, furthering the call for financial institutions to prioritize ethical compliance in their growth models.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

Our podcast listeners are very familiar with federal fair lending and anti-discrimination laws that apply in the consumer lending area: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA). Those statutes prohibit discriminating against certain protected classes of consumer credit applicants. For example, the ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); the applicant's use of a public assistance program to receive all or part of their income; or the applicant's previous good-faith exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The FHA prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, pregnancy or having children. The FTC sometimes relies on the “unfairness” prong of its UDAP (Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices) authority to bring other types of discrimination claims against companies subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. The CFPB has tried to use the unfairness prong of its UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) authority in a similar manner with respect to companies and banks subject to its jurisdiction. A Federal District Court has invalidated the portion of the CFPB's UDAAP Exam Manual provision upon which such authority was previously predicated and the case is now being considered by the Fifth Circuit. Our focus during this podcast show is not on these Federal anti-discrimination statutes, but rather on the fact that an increasing number of states have either enacted or are considering enacting legislation requiring financial institutions to provide persons (both existing customers and prospective customers) who are not ordinarily protected by the federal anti-discrimination statutes with fair access to financial services. The first broad fair access requirements appeared in a Florida statute enacted in 2023, which generally prohibits financial institutions from denying or canceling services to a person or otherwise discriminating against a person in making available services on the basis of enumerated factors, commonly including factors such as political opinions, or any other factor that is not quantitative, impartial, and risk-based. Because this topic is very controversial, I invited individuals who support and oppose these new types of state statutes: Brian Knight, Senior Research Fellow at Mercatus Center of George Mason University, Professor Peter Conti-Brown of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Peter Hardy who co-leads our Anti-Money Laundering (AML) team at Ballard Spahr. (Brain was previously a guest on our May 23, 2024 podcast which focused on the related topic of Operation Chokepoint.) Brian is generally supportive of these state fair access laws. Professor Conti-Brown and Peter Hardy generally oppose these types of laws. We cover the following sub-topics, among others: 1.              Why were these laws enacted? 2.              What financial institutions are subject to these laws? Do they cover only depository institutions or do they also cover non-banks? Do they cover only consumer transactions or do they cover business transactions as well? Do they cover out-of-state financial institutions doing business with residents of the states that have enacted these statutes? Are there exemptions based on small size? 3.              Since banks are not public utilities, and have shareholders and employees to whom they owe duties, why should they be forced to do business with people or companies who generate fossil fuel or who manufacture or sell firearms, to take just two examples of industries protected by these statutes? 4.              What are the private and public remedies for violating these statutes? 5.              Does the National Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act and the Federal Credit Union Act preempt these state laws? 6.              Do these laws run afoul of AML laws as the Treasury suggests? Brian believes that these state statutes don't force any financial institution to do business with a particular person or company. The statutes simply say that you must give a good reason for a declination. A good reason would be one based on risk to the institution such as a lack of experience in evaluating the company's business. Another good reason would be that the company is engaged in an unlawful business. A bad reason for a declination would be that the bank doesn't like the political or cultural positions of the company. Peter Conti-Brown believes that banks should be able to decide with whom they desire to do business as long as they don't violate existing federal laws that prohibit discrimination, like ECOA and the FHA. Peter expresses skepticism that there was or is a need for these statutes. The “bottom line” is that the state statutes are bad public policy. Peter also believes that these state statutes are preempted by the National Bank Act. Peter Hardy believes that these state statutes throw a monkey wrench into banks' efforts to comply with AML requirements and the Bank Secrecy Act. He explains how these statutes could help bad actors evade the BSA. We have previously blogged about these statutes. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureMore and more banks are being investigated for money laundering, they said criminals only use bitcoin for money laundering. US economy grew because of gov spending and inflation. Fed cuts rates mortgage rates climb higher. As the economy implodes gold and bitcoin will skyrocket. The [DS] is trying everything they can to manipulate the election using ballots. The problem is that the people continue to catch them cheating, which is making hard for the [DS]. Dominion machines have been affected nationwide and might not produce the right results. The honeypot that Comey used on Trump has been exposed. The [DS] is panicking, its all falling apart on them.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy BofA Warns "Enforcement Action" By Feds Possible Over Money Laundering, Zelle  A little more than two weeks after Toronto-Dominion Bank pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges and paid $3 billion in fines and other penalties to the Department of Justice and financial regulators for failing to monitor money laundering operatio  the Corporation's Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programs (Programs), including transaction monitoring, training, governance, and customer due diligence."  "In cooperation with regulators, the Corporation has been, and plans to continue, implementing enhancements to these Programs. The Corporation is continuing discussions with its regulators about the Programs, and resolution of these discussions may include one or more public orders by the regulators," BofA continued. BofA is responding to an inquiry from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into electronic payments on the Zelle payment network. "The CFPB staff has initiated discussions with the Corporation to pursue a resolution of the inquiry or file an enforcement action. The Corporation is evaluating next steps, including litigation," the bank said. The filing did not mention specifics about potential AML issues. However, the TD Bank case, where the Canadian bank chose profits over AML compliance, allowed fentanyl and narcotics trafficking operations to use banking services. Source: zerohedge.com U.S. Economy Grew At 2.8% Pace In Third Quarter The U.S. economy expanded at a 2.8 percent annual pace in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Consumer spending jumped  3.7 percent in the third quarter, the largest rise in six quarters. That was much higher than the three percent expected. Imports, which are a subtraction from GDP, soared in the third quarter. Imports of goods climbed 11.6 percent, partially reflecting U.S. importers pulling forward imports for fear that the port worker strike would be a lasting obstacle to bringing in foreign-made products. This dragged down GDP by nine-tenths of a percentage point. Government spending was a big source of economic growth in the quarter, adding nine-tenths of a percentage point to GDP growth. Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1851291535683318037  for $420,400 which means a mortgage payment with 20% down would be $2,343/month. Including taxes and insurance, homebuyers can now expect to spend over $3,000/month. In other words, homebuyers are now spending over 50% of their post-tax income on home payments. Truly mind-blowing numbers. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1851659293059141954    $3,000 monthly budget can now afford a $442,500 home, down from $475,750 on September 17th, the lowest since February 2023. A homebuyer with a $2,

In this episode of Financial Crime Matters, Kieran sits down with Michael Grady, chief of the bank integrity unit at the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division during the ACAMS Assembly Vegas Conference in September. Mike talks about the BIU's remit to pursue criminal infractions at banks, payment service providers, cryptocurrency exchanges and other financial businesses subject to the Bank Secrecy Act. During their conversation, Mike discusses some specific cases involving institutions actively involved in breaking anti-money laundering, terror finance and sanctions laws, which pose a threat to national security.

A Hezbollah source told CNN Israel was targeting a senior official in the organization when it struck a residential building in central Beirut. TD Bank has pleaded guilty to charges that it violated the Bank Secrecy Act and permitted money laundering. At least 12 people in Florida are dead after Hurricane Milton roared through. Yesterday the Department of Agriculture announced its second listeria-related meat recall in months. Plus, this year's Nobel Prize in literature has been awarded to a South Korean author.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

02nd Oct: Blockchain DXB Podcast

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The privacy Americans should enjoy over their financial information has been in steady decline for more than 50 years. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Bank Secrecy Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Audit Trail, grant government access to Americans' financial transactions. As financial services have become increasingly digitized, the volume of financial records to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access has grown exponentially. And proposals for a central bank digital currency, which involve the government becoming more intimately involved in Americans' use of money, have the potential to further erode the ability to transact without government surveillance.As policymakers are confronted with questions about evolving technologies, the question of financial privacy must not be shunted to the side. It is time to rethink financial privacy. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Does the Constitution provide the protections needed to limit government access to financial information? Can decentralization provide privacy-protecting solutions? Join us for an outstanding program featuring leading policymakers and experts discussing financial privacy at Cato's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives annual conference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Polly as she covers the Bank Secrecy Act and explains why banks require so many forms when you make large withdrawals.  Its all about avoiding fraud!

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis discusses the complexities and potential pitfalls of bank-fintech partnerships. Joined by colleagues Alexandra Steinberg Barrage, Matthew Bornfreund, and Jesse Silverman, the conversation delves into the structure of banking-as-a-service (BaaS) relationships, regulatory pressures, and key friction points such as BSA/AML compliance and ledgering. The team offers practical solutions for both banks and fintechs to ensure successful collaborations, emphasizing the importance of clear roles, responsibilities, and robust compliance measures. This episode is essential listening for anyone involved in or considering a bank-fintech partnership.

In the wake of the largest settlement in the history of the United States – over $4 billion to settle violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, failing to register as a money transmitting business, and breaching US sanctions – Binance, the world's largest crypto business, is working to build a best-in-class AML and sanctions compliance program under the oversight of independent monitors. In this episode, we are joined by Binance Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman to discuss that process, his journey from federal prosector to crypto, and the worsening situation for Binance financial crime lead Tigran Gambaryan who has been held in Nigeria for over 100 days. Today's Guests Noah Perlman, Chief Compliance Officer, Binance Host: Ari Rebord, Global Head of Policy, TRM Labs

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Bittner v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported? The case was decided on February 28, 2023. The court held that The Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion holding that Bittner was subject to a fine only for each report he failed to file, not for each account he failed to report over that five-year period. The plain language of Section 5321 addresses the legal duty to file reports, not of individual accounts or their number. The penalty the statute prescribes for nonwillful violations must therefore be based on the number of reports, not on the number of accounts. In contrast, for willful violations, the statute expressly considers a penalty on a per-account basis. The government's guidance as to these provisions, as well as the drafting history, further support this understanding. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined, arguing that “the most natural reading of the statute establishes that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account constitutes a separate reporting violation.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

On today's episode of the podcast we're taking about the Corporate Transparency Act and why it comes with a Beneficial Ownership Information report. Spoiler alert: you'll need to fill out the BOI form this year if you haven't already. When Congress makes new laws, they set a day when the law becomes effective. It's a heads up that they're changing the rules and that starting on that day-you'll be expected to obey. That delay gives everyone time to • read the new law, • ask questions about what the new law means, and • organize resources in preparation for the new law. In 2021 Congress passed a bundle of laws as part of the annual defense budget which came into effect on January 1st of this year called the Corporate Transparency Act. The Corporate Transparency Act requires most businesses to disclose certain information to the federal government. We'll cover: • whether or not your business is exempt from reporting,• whose information gets reported, and • how to report that information if you're required to do so. The Corporate Transparency Act is for helping law enforcement agencies find, prevent, and prosecute financial crimes. Financial crimes can look like a lot of different things. A popular example you see in movies is money laundering, when people get money from illegitimate sources but can't just go deposit it in a bank or use it to buy a car or a new house with it so they disguise it as other assets and run it through their business. People have been doing this for a very long time and proving it can be difficult. Back in 1970 Congress gave us the Bank Secrecy Act, which said banks have to actually help law enforcement identify and prosecute financial crimes. The reason was because banks didn't care where the money was coming from, they were getting paid and it wasn't their job to ask whether money was coming from a legitimate or criminal enterprise. Congress said banks don't get to turn a blind eye and have to report suspicious activity or really huge transfers. While this helped a lot, there was still plenty they couldn't catch. In 1990, Congress gave us a sub-department of the United States Treasury called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. FinCEN lets law enforcement agencies talk to each other about that information that banks have to report, like suspicious activity or huge transactions. They compare notes, so even if a single blip on the radar didn't raise any alarms at the FBI, they might talk to state law enforcement and compare notes and find out about criminal activity they couldn't see before. FinCEN even gives awards every year to different agencies that successfully use FinCEN's data to prevent or prosecute crimes. For example, in 2023- • The Drug Enforcement Administration used FinCEN data to find and seize 4.5 metric tons of cocaine• The Secret Service and U.S. Postal Inspections Service used FinCEN data to shut down a scheme to compromise emails• And the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division used FinCEN data to protect hundreds of victims of a human trafficking ring. But there was a huge absence of information for FinCEN that still made it really hard to crack down on financial crimes. FinCEN knew what the banks were telling them about suspicious activity and big transactions and what other agencies noticed about that information but they didn't know who was behind these semi-legitimate businesses. That's what this new law, the Corporate Transparency Act is for. Businesses affected by the law will have to complete a Beneficial Ownership Information report to FinCEN. While it's not a ton of information they require from you, it's information from a ton of people, and that tells them more than you might think and helps them discover a lot more criminal activity that they couldn't know about just from the banks or by talking to each other. By collecting a small amount of information about a lot of people, you can make connections in their interests, and gain insight into their activities. Congress says we're now going to use that method of data interpretation to catch financial crimes and the people who benefit from them. To comply with the law and tell them you aren't commiting financial crimes, you need to file a Beneficial Ownership Information report on FinCEN's website. I really doubt you fall under an exception, because basically the only companies that don't have to file are businesses that already have to give FinCEN a bunch of information, like banks. If your business was formed by filing with a secretary of state, you've got to dish your deets. LLC's, Corporations, whatever. If you created it by sending a piece of paper to your Secretary of State, you gotta tell FinCEN who you are. If you have an ownership interest in a business, same deal, dish the deets. Important note here: It doesn't matter to them if you have a controlling interest in a business, like the majority of shares or whatever. You are a quote “Beneficial Owner” as long as you have an ownership interest that you benefit from. If your name is going to be on a form to create a business like an LLC or corporation either this year or in the future, then you're what they're calling a Company Applicant, and you need to fill out a report. Whatever reason you have for filing a report, whether you formed a business or you're a beneficial owner, or your name is going on the paperwork for a new business-we're all going to the same place for this report. You go to FinCEN's website and they have a big ol' button on the front page that'll take you to file at https://www.fincen.gov/boi I recommend taking a minute to gather your info before you start, like, the same papers you would if you were jumping on a tax strategy or business entity formation call with me. We need stuff both for your business and for you personally, since you're a beneficial owner. For your business, you'll need to report: • Your full legal name• Any Doing Business As (DBA) or trade names• Your complete current U.S. address The State, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation (wherever you sent the papers to create your company)• If it was formed abroad: the State or Tribal jurisdiction of first registration• And your IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (including Employer Identification Number) For each beneficial owner or company applicant, you'll report: • Full legal name• Date of Birth• Complete current residential address (except if you filed on behalf of a business, like if you're a paralegal)• Unique identifying number, issuing jurisdiction AND image of one of the following documents:• U.S. Passport• State driver's license• Identification document issued by a state, local government, or tribe. Great. Love it. Let's talk due dates. If your business creation documents were filed prior to January 1, 2024 then you have until January 1, 2025. Amazing. That date feels pretty far off, but we want to treat it like a tax deadline and make sure we have all our information in so we can file ahead of schedule and spend Deadline Day relaxing at the pool. For new businesses being formed this year, you've got less time. If your business creation documents were filed/will be filed after January 1, 2024 then you have 90 days from the date of notice that the filing is effective. So you get an email from the secretary of state saying yes you can be a company, and you'll have 90 days to tell FinCEN that it's official. Starting January 1, 2025, they really pick up the pace. If your business creation documents are filed after January 1, 2025 then you will have 30 days from the date of notice that the filing is effective. I know this might sound scary but don't panic. Just follow rules and file your report. When they passed this law, Congress kind of interrogated FinCEN about how harsh they were going to be about the reports. FinCEN isn't looking for gotcha moments. They only want to prosecute willful violations. You are a pinpoint of data on a map of every business in America. They're looking to trace the path of money from point to point and see when it cycles back or if it's headed to something bad.

New regulations under consideration would hold financial advisors accountable to elements of the Bank Secrecy Act, which currently compels banks to turn over certain financial data to the feds. How would that change your relationship with that advisor? Jennifer Schulp comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is my conversation with Rebecca Rettig and Michael Mosier. Rebecca is the Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon Labs. Michael is cofounder of Arktouros and partner at Ex Ante.Timestamps:- 00:00:00 intro- 00:01:38 sponsor: Privy- 0:02:59 Rebecca's background, the Silk Road case, Aave, Polygon- 00:07:22 Michael's background, Department of Justice, FinCEN, Espresso Systems, the White House, ex/ante - 00:15:12 the current regulatory regime, Bank Secrecy Act, sanctions laws, miners/validators- 00:29:30 sponsor: Optimism- 00:30:40 genuine DeFi vs onchain CeFi, critical infrastructure- 00:44:54 Uniswap contracts, app vs protocol, wallet risk scoring, OFAC, Lazarus Group- 00:54:19 the Security Alliance (SEAL), white hats, working with the FBI- 01:08:04 why do this work, the ability to innovate in the US is a freedom- 01:12:13 crypto policy bootcamp- 01:14:00 outroThank you to our sponsors for making this podcast possible:Optimism - https://optimism.ioPrivy - https://privy.ioInto the Bytecode:Twitter -  https://twitter.com/sinahabFarcaster - https://warpcast.com/sinahabOther episodes - https://intothebytecode.comDisclaimer: this podcast is for informational purposes only. It is not financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell securities. The host and guests may hold positions in the projects discussed.

The co-authors of a new paper discuss how to block illicit activity without turning neutral software into financial institutions. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Pandora, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform.Trying to regulate DeFi is a huge challenge because in a truly decentralized system, there should be no centralized actors to make and enforce rules for. This could make combating illicit finance challenging since traditionally, regulation has been targeted at centralized intermediaries. Yet Rebecca Rettig, Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon Labs; Michael Mosier, the co-founder of boutique law firm Arktouros; and Katja Gilman, senior lead for public policy at Polygon Labs, published a paper last week that proposes to do just that. Rettig and Mosier join Unchained to discuss what prompted them to write the paper, what the difference is between "onchain CeFi" and "genuine DeFi," how targeting high-risk wallets can be one part of the solution, how critical communications transmitters (CCTs) are another piece of the puzzle, and what next steps they are pursuing. Show highlights | The motivations behind their paper and Michael and Rebecca's legal backgroundsWhy Michael views the Bank Secrecy Act as outdated in the context of DeFiHow critical KYC and AML compliance is for the integrity of DeFiWhat Rebecca identifies as the principal risks in the DeFi sectorWhy their proposal target the protocol layer for effective DeFi regulationHow "onchain CeFi" differs fundamentally from "genuine DeFi"Whether a decentralized protocol can be effectively regulated when controlled by a DAOHow if DeFi were to be classified as critical infrastructure by the Cyber and Information Security Agency (CISA), it would impact the sectorWhether the critical components of blockchain networks, such as RPCs, can be regulated effectivelyHow categorizing wallets based on risk can be one part of the solution to fighting illicit financeWhy Rebecca considers Tornado Cash a prime example of “genuine DeFi”What steps Rebecca and Michael plan to take next following the publication of their paperThank you to our sponsors! Popcorn Network | Polkadot-Guests | Rebecca Rettig, Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon LabsPrevious appearances on Unchained:Just a Coincidence? Coinbase and Polygon Lawyers See Bad Omens in SEC CrackdownKik's Surprising Move in Its Lawsuit With the SECMichael Mosier, cofounder of Arktouros PLLCLinks | Previous coverage of Unchained on the topic: Could the Bank Secrecy Act Harm Crypto? Coin Center Thinks So Full paper: Genuine DeFi as Critical Infrastructure: A Conceptual Framework for Combating Illicit Finance Activity in Decentralized FinanceRebecca's threadCoin Center: Broad, Ambiguous, or Delegated: Constitutional Infirmities of the Bank Secrecy ActTornado CashUnchained: Given the Sanctions on Tornado Cash, Is Ethereum Censorship Resistant?Illicit funds in crypto:Unchained: How Much Money Are Terrorists Actually Raising in Crypto?Rebecca Rettig, Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon LabsMichael Mosier, Cofounder of Arktouros PLLC-Unchained Podcast is Produced by Laura Shin Media, LLC. Distributed by CoinDesk. Senior Producer is Michele Musso and Executive Producer is Jared Schwartz.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Pandora, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Trying to regulate DeFi is a huge challenge because in a truly decentralized system, there should be no centralized actors to make and enforce rules for. This could make combating illicit finance challenging since traditionally, regulation has been targeted at centralized intermediaries. Yet Rebecca Rettig, Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon Labs; Michael Mosier, the co-founder of boutique law firm Arktouros; and Katja Gilman, senior lead for public policy at Polygon Labs, published a paper last week that proposes to do just that.  Rebecca and Michael join Unchained to discuss what prompted them to write the paper, what the difference is between "onchain CeFi" and "genuine DeFi," how targeting high-risk wallets can be one part of the solution, how critical communications transmitters (CCTs) are another piece of the puzzle, and what next steps they are pursuing.  Show highlights: The motivations behind their paper and Michael and Rebecca's legal backgrounds Why Michael views the Bank Secrecy Act as outdated in the context of DeFi How critical KYC and AML compliance is for the integrity of DeFi What Rebecca identifies as the principal risks in the DeFi sector Why their proposal targets the protocol layer for effective DeFi regulation How "onchain CeFi" differs fundamentally from "genuine DeFi" Whether a decentralized protocol can be effectively regulated when controlled by a DAO How if DeFi were to be classified as critical infrastructure by the Cyber and Information Security Agency (CISA), it would impact the sector Whether the critical components of blockchain networks, such as RPCs, can be regulated effectively How categorizing wallets based on risk can be one part of the solution to fighting illicit finance Why Rebecca considers Tornado Cash a prime example of “genuine DeFi” What steps Rebecca and Michael plan to take next following the publication of their paper Thank you to our sponsors! Popcorn Network Polkadot Guest: Rebecca Rettig, Chief Legal and Policy Officer at Polygon Labs Previous appearances on Unchained: Just a Coincidence? Coinbase and Polygon Lawyers See Bad Omens in SEC Crackdown Kik's Surprising Move in Its Lawsuit With the SEC Michael Mosier, cofounder of Arktouros PLLC Links Previous coverage of Unchained on the topic: Could the Bank Secrecy Act Harm Crypto? Coin Center Thinks So  Full paper: Genuine DeFi as Critical Infrastructure: A Conceptual Framework for Combating Illicit Finance Activity in Decentralized Finance Rebecca's thread Coin Center: Broad, Ambiguous, or Delegated: Constitutional Infirmities of the Bank Secrecy Act Tornado Cash Unchained: Given the Sanctions on Tornado Cash, Is Ethereum Censorship Resistant? Illicit funds in crypto: Unchained: How Much Money Are Terrorists Actually Raising in Crypto? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discussing NCUA's Supervisory Priority Letter: Part TwoIn this podcast, Mark Treichel is joined by Steve Farrar and Todd Miller for a second discussion of the priority letter from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). They delve into topics such as consumer financial protection, bank secrecy act, cybersecurity and support for small credit unions and minority depository institutions. The trio reflect on the importance of communication during the examination process, related budget implications and increase in resources in this area, and the rising priority of consumer financial protection. They also explore the timeliness or lack thereof of examination reports, highlighting the need for credit unions to maintain proper protocols and functions for comprehensive and timely examinations.00:35 Introduction and Overview01:26 Discussion on Consumer Financial Protection07:29 Insights on Cybersecurity and Information Security11:24 Bank Secrecy Act and its Implications14:25 Support for Small Credit Unions and Minority Depository Institutions17:01 Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Peter Van Valkenburgh is director of research at Coin Center. In this interview, we discuss Coin Center's role in educating lawmakers, analysing policy proposals, and advocating for reasonable regulations. Peter talks about their current lawsuits against the US Treasury and IRS, challenging the misapplication of tax and sanctions regulations. We also cover the changing dynamics of political support for Bitcoin and the challenges posed by figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren. - - - - Coin Center has been at the forefront of cryptocurrency policy issues since it launched in 2014. Initially, their work was focused on educating lawmakers about Bitcoin and blockchain technology. They addressed concerns about money laundering, emphasised the importance of privacy and speech rights, and explained the technology's potential. However, over time, Coin Center's work has expanded to include policy research and analysis. The non-profit group now examines how existing laws apply to crypto, and they promote reasonable regulations that protect innovation and constitutional rights. They also engage in lobbying efforts, presenting Congress with preferred solutions to policy problems. When these efforts are unsuccessful, they resort to lawsuits. Currently, they have two lawsuits against the US Treasury and IRS, challenging tax regulations and sanctions that harm privacy rights. In this podcast, we discussed the split opinions regarding crypto in US politics. Peter explained that the narrative around digital assets has shifted, partly due to influential figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren taking an anti-crypto stance, and partly due to the reputation damage caused by various actors in the space. We also discussed the emerging regulatory threats such as the use of the Bank Secrecy Act to impose strict regulations on core infrastructure providers. All of this work obviously has to be paid for. While Coin Center is financially stable, donations are still crucial as there will be more lawsuits and lobbying efforts in the future: for example, Coin Center may raise a future lawsuit challenging legislation that classifies Bitcoin miners as regulated entities. And, you can sign up for Coin Center's newsletter to find out the other ways you can help them play a crucial role in shaping a robust future for digital assets. - Show notes: https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/the-unconstitutional-attack-on-privacy-with-peter-van-valkenburgh This episode's sponsors: Iris Energy - Bitcoin Mining. Done Sustainably Bitcasino - The Future of Gaming is here Ledger - State of the art Bitcoin hardware wallet Wasabi Wallet - Privacy by default Unchained - Secure your bitcoin with confidence OrangePillApp - Stack Friends Who Stack Sats SwanBitcoin - Invest in Bitcoin with Swan

“The problem is it's this naked delegation of lawmaking authority to the unelected people within Treasury…you want them to have unconstrained power? Shouldn't we just go back to a world where bipartisan legislation in Congress is what is consequential and not just the whims of every next administration?”— Peter Van ValkenburghPeter Van Valkenburgh is director of research at Coin Center. In this interview, we discuss Coin Center's role in educating lawmakers, analysing policy proposals, and advocating for reasonable regulations. Peter talks about their current lawsuits against the US Treasury and IRS, challenging the misapplication of tax and sanctions regulations. We also cover the changing dynamics of political support for Bitcoin and the challenges posed by figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren. - - - - Coin Center has been at the forefront of cryptocurrency policy issues since it launched in 2014. Initially, their work was focused on educating lawmakers about Bitcoin and blockchain technology. They addressed concerns about money laundering, emphasised the importance of privacy and speech rights, and explained the technology's potential. However, over time, Coin Center's work has expanded to include policy research and analysis. The non-profit group now examines how existing laws apply to crypto, and they promote reasonable regulations that protect innovation and constitutional rights. They also engage in lobbying efforts, presenting Congress with preferred solutions to policy problems. When these efforts are unsuccessful, they resort to lawsuits. Currently, they have two lawsuits against the US Treasury and IRS, challenging tax regulations and sanctions that harm privacy rights.In this podcast, we discussed the split opinions regarding crypto in US politics. Peter explained that the narrative around digital assets has shifted, partly due to influential figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren taking an anti-crypto stance, and partly due to the reputation damage caused by various actors in the space. We also discussed the emerging regulatory threats such as the use of the Bank Secrecy Act to impose strict regulations on core infrastructure providers. All of this work obviously has to be paid for. While Coin Center is financially stable, donations are still crucial as there will be more lawsuits and lobbying efforts in the future: for example, Coin Center may raise a future lawsuit challenging legislation that classifies Bitcoin miners as regulated entities. And, you can sign up for Coin Center's newsletter to find out the other ways you can help them play a crucial role in shaping a robust future for digital assets.- - - - This episode's sponsors:Iris Energy - Bitcoin Mining. Done Sustainably Bitcasino - The Future of Gaming is hereLedger - State of the art Bitcoin hardware walletWasabi Wallet - Privacy by defaultUnchained - Secure your bitcoin with confidenceOrange Pill App - Stack friends who stack satsSwan Bitcoin - Invest in Bitcoin with Swan-----WBD753 - Show Notes-----If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following:Become a Patron and get access to shows early or help contributeMake a tip:Bitcoin: 3FiC6w7eb3dkcaNHMAnj39ANTAkv8Ufi2SQR Codes: BitcoinIf you do send a tip then please email me so that I can say thank youSubscribe on iTunes | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | Deezer | TuneIn | RSS FeedLeave a review on iTunesShare the show and episodes with your friends and familySubscribe to the newsletter on my websiteFollow me on Twitter Personal | Twitter Podcast | Instagram | Medium | YouTubeIf you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.

In this crucial episode of The Mark Moss Show, join us as we dissect Senator Elizabeth Warren's latest legislative attempts to curtail the burgeoning cryptocurrency industry. Mark Moss dives deep into the ramifications of Warren's proposed AML bill, which seeks to extend the Bank Secrecy Act to cryptocurrency, potentially stifling the industry under heavy reporting requirements and surveillance. We explore how this bill, targeting unhosted and private wallets, could endanger not only the crypto sector but also individual financial privacy and freedom. Furthermore, Mark highlights the growing resistance in various states against such overreaching policies and underscores the importance of understanding the true implications of CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies). Tune in to grasp the full picture of how these proposed regulations could alter the landscape of financial freedom and what it means for your autonomy in the digital age.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is the cost of ignoring compliance? For the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, it's $4.3 billion dollars. In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov and his guest, Matt Stankiewicz, delve into one of the most significant financial crime prosecutions in the history of the Justice Department: Binance Holdings. Under the direction of its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, Binance blatantly disregarded compliance, had no AML programs, and willfully put growth over regulations. Now, they must pay out a settlement split among various agencies, including the DOJ, OFAC, FinCEN, and CFTC. In addition to the settlement, Binance has destroyed their reputation at a time when customers are demanding companies they can trust.Matt Stankiewicz is a compliance consultant, and currently a partner at The Volkov Law Group, specializing in anti-bribery, corruptions controls, and compliance programs. He previously served as a member of the Ethics and Compliance Monitoring Team, appointed by the DOJ and EPA, and his casework has included global audits of Fortune 100 companies, sanction violations investigations, risk-assessment for third party distributors, and much more.You'll hear Michael and Matt discuss:Cryptocurrency companies allow customers to exchange government-backed currency for cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin. Several major crypto companies, including FTX, Celsius, and BlockFi, have faced bankruptcy and legal issues due to non-compliance and shady practices, resulting in customers losing money.Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, recently settled with multiple agencies in the Justice Department for over $4 billion, with penalties split between forfeiture and criminal fines.As part of the agreement, Binance's main exchange is barred from operating in the US market, which accounts for a third of their revenue, and they also face increased scrutiny by two separate compliance monitors over the next several years.Their circumvention of laws and regulations include violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, failure to register as a money transmitting business, and multiple sanctions transgressions.Binance's founder and CEO, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), pled guilty to his own set of similar charges, including a failure to maintain an effective AML program, and is facing a multi-million penalty and a potential prison sentence of up to 18 months.Binance was established in China, but regularly moved their headquarters from country to country to avoid regulations. Their lack of compliance was driven from the top, with senior leadership actively prioritizing growth over compliance.Binance created its US-based exchange as “window dressing” to avoid regulations, and the customer service department assisted its customers in circumventing its own compliance controls, like using a VPN to get past IP blocking technology.Though Binance is large enough to continue operating despite the fines, this settlement has sent a strong message to the crypto industry about the importance of reputation, compliance, and customer trust.The cryptocurrency industry is currently lacking a “culture of compliance,” but it has reached an inflection point where lawlessness and shady practices are no longer acceptable. In addition to regulators cracking down on them, customers are also applying pressure for these companies to reform.The use of blockchain technology in the crypto industry provides unique tools for transaction monitoring and tracking funds, which can help ensure compliance with AML regulations and detect suspicious activities.Rogue countries like North Korea are experts in leveraging cryptocurrency in a way that threatens US National Security, so the DOJ must become more adept in investigating and taking action against those that violate US law.ResourcesMatt Stankiewicz on LinkedIn | X (Twitter)Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | X (Twitter)The Volkov Law Group

NCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper's Written Testimony Before the House Financial Services CommitteeNCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in 2023.Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the work of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).The NCUA insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, protects credit union members, and charters and regulates federal credit unions. The NCUA also protects the safety and soundness of the credit union system by identifying, monitoring, and managing risks to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). In my testimony today, I will discuss the state of the credit union system, recent efforts by the agency to strengthen the system, and several legislative requests.State of the Credit Union SystemThe credit union system over the last year has remained largely stable in its performance and relatively resilient against economic disruptions. However, during the last few quarters, the NCUA has seen growing signs of financial strain on credit union balance sheets and in household budgets. Economists are also forecasting an economic slowdown as the lagged effects of elevated interest rates take hold. Each of these developments could affect credit union performance in the coming quarters.Over the same period, the NCUA has also seen growing stress within the system because of a rise in interest rate and liquidity risks. In fact, this financial stress is reflected in the increasing number of composite CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 credit unions.1 Assets in composite CAMELS code 3 institutions increased sizably in the second quarter, especially among those complex credit unions with more than $500 million in assets. Such increases may well continue in future quarters. We have additionally seen more credit unions fall into the composite CAMELS code 4 and 5 ratings during the second quarter.Credit Union System PerformanceAs of June 30, 2023, the system's net worth ratio stood at 10.63 percent. There was continued year-over-year growth in assets and lending, with system assets surpassing $2.2 trillion and outstanding loans at more than $1.5 trillion. Although insured shares and deposits decreased slightly compared to the previous quarter, they stood almost 2 percent higher than one year earlier.Second quarter data also demonstrate some indications of growing consumer financial stress. The delinquency rate for loans rose slightly to 63 basis points, although it remains below historic averages. Credit cards and automobile loans, however, show increased delinquency levels at 154 and 67 basis points, respectively. Additionally, net charge-off levels have risen over the last year, returning to pre-pandemic averages.Additionally, funding costs for credit unions have increased significantly in the rising interest rate environment. Credit unions have increased their issuances of time deposits, leading to total interest expenses growing substantially over the year. However, the industry's return on average assets remains sound at 79 basis points. Together, these numbers show the credit union system continues to rest on a solid footing.External Factors Affecting the SystemThe NCUA is closely monitoring the financial markets and the economy as the current environment has created challenges for some consumers and credit unions. Inflation and interest rates are affecting household budgets, which could lead to an increase in credit risk in future quarters. In addition, the prevalence of hybrid work environments has placed pressure on commercial real estate lending. While the credit union system overall has modest exposure to this type of lending, the NCUA is closely monitoring individual credit unions with material exposure to commercial real estate.The rise in interest rates has also increased liquidity and interest rate risks in the credit union system, including at several of the 421 federally insured credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets. Accordingly, the NCUA has emphasized the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency planning in its industry communications and will continue to ensure credit unions conduct liquidity and asset-liability management planning to address current challenges and future uncertainties.With respect to all these risks and to protect the Share Insurance Fund against potential losses, the NCUA will continue to vigilantly monitor credit union performance through the examination process, offsite monitoring, and tailored supervision. The NCUA will also, when appropriate, take action to protect credit union members and their deposits.Share Insurance Fund PerformanceBacked by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Share Insurance Fund provides insurance coverage for individual accounts at federally insured credit unions up to $250,000.2 As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund insured $1.7 trillion in deposits and shares. Notably, the Share Insurance Fund protects nearly 92 percent of total share deposits in the credit union system. In comparison, uninsured shares and deposits equaled approximately $160 billion in the second quarter or 8 percent of total share deposits.The Share Insurance Fund continues to perform well, with no premiums currently expected. As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund reported a year-to-date net income of $79 million, a net position of $20.3 billion, and an equity ratio of 1.27 percent.3 The NCUA projects that the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund will end the year at 1.27 percent, which is sufficient but below the 1.33 percent normal operating level target set by the NCUA Board.Given the liquidity events in 2023, economic conditions, and the growing stress in the credit union system from liquidity and interest rate risks, the NCUA Board decided to build up the liquidity position of the Share Insurance Fund to a targeted amount of $4 billion. The Share Insurance Fund reached that target in September. The NCUA Board continues to monitor liquidity in the Share Insurance Fund.State of the Central Liquidity FacilityThe COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, interest rate volatility, and liquidity risk have all underscored the importance of the NCUA's Central Liquidity Facility (CLF).4 The CLF is an important tool and acts as a shock absorber when unexpected liquidity events occur.Under the NCUA's regulations, credit unions with assets more than $250 million must have access to a federal emergency liquidity source as part of their contingency funding plans. This federal emergency liquidity backstop can be the CLF, the Federal Reserve's Discount Window, or both. Credit unions with less than $250 million in assets are not required to have membership with a contingent federal liquidity source; however, they must identify external sources as part of their liquidity policy.5As of September 30, 2023, the CLF had 399 consumer credit union members, providing $19.8 billion in lending capacity. These credit unions range in asset size from less than $50 million to more than $10 billion. Their access to the CLF helps protect approximately $360 billion in credit union members' assets.The more members the CLF has, the more effective it is as a liquidity facility. As of December 2022, the CLF had a much greater total membership of 3,673 consumer credit unions with a combined $537 billion in member assets and a lending capacity of $27.5 billion. This rapid decline in membership assets followed the expiration of the temporary statutory enhancements that: Increased the CLF's maximum legal borrowing authority; Permitted access for corporate credit unions, as agent members, to borrow for their own needs; Provided greater flexibility and affordability to agent members to join the CLF to serve smaller groups of their covered institutions; and Gave the NCUA Board the clarity and flexibility about the loans it can approve by removing the phrase, “the Board shall not approve an application for credit the intent of which is to expand credit union portfolios.” Among other benefits, these statutory provisions facilitated agent membership of corporate credit unions. These enhancements, however, ended on January 1, 2023, resulting in 3,322 credit unions with less than $250 million in assets losing access to the CLF. Consequently, the CLF's borrowing capacity has decreased by almost $10 billion.To address this expiration and growing liquidity risks, the NCUA Board has unanimously requested that Congress allow corporate credit unions to purchase capital stock in the CLF to help smaller credit unions access to the facility. This change would make the CLF more affordable for corporate credit unions subscribing for a subset of their members. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the CLF reforms at no cost to taxpayers.6NCUA's Efforts to Protect and Strengthen the Credit Union SystemIn recent months, the NCUA has undertaken several actions to respond to cybersecurity risk; support minority depository institutions; enhance the credit union system's and the NCUA's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; and consider and adopt new rules to strengthen the system.Enhancing CybersecurityCybersecurity threats within the financial services industry are high and expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. To maintain vigilance against these threats, the NCUA is committed to ensuring consistency, transparency, and accountability in its cybersecurity examination program and related activities.Earlier this year, the NCUA deployed its updated, scalable, and risk-focused Information Security Examination (ISE) procedures. The ISE examination initiative offers flexibility for credit unions while providing examiners with standardized review steps to facilitate advanced data collection and analysis. Together with the agency's voluntary Automated Cybersecurity Evaluation Toolbox maturity assessment, the new ISE procedures will assist the NCUA in protecting the credit union system from cyberattacks.In addition, the NCUA's recently implemented cyber incident reporting rule has proven to be helpful to the agency and credit union industry.7 The final rule requires a federally insured credit union to report a substantial cyber incident to the NCUA as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours after the credit union reasonably believes a reportable cyber incident has occurred. In the first 30 days after the rule became effective, the NCUA received 146 incident reports, more than it had received in total in the previous year. More than 60 percent of these incident reports involve third-party service providers and credit union service organizations (CUSOs).The NCUA also actively communicates with credit unions about the increased likelihood of cyberattacks resulting from geopolitical and other cyber events. Credit unions of all sizes are a part of the U.S. critical infrastructure and should implement appropriate controls in the technology they use to deliver member services.Maintaining Consumer Financial ProtectionAn important part of the NCUA's mission is to examine credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. The agency's consumer compliance efforts are integral to maintaining a safe-and-sound credit union system.In 2023, the agency's consumer financial protection supervisory priorities have included overdraft protection, fair lending, residential real estate appraisal bias, and Truth in Lending Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance. The NCUA also prioritized examining credit union compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act, including disclosure requirements.In addition, the agency increased its review of overdraft programs and non-sufficient funds fee practices at credit unions to assess whether providing those services and charging the fees are potentially unfair practices. The NCUA's supervision of the services aims to create a more equitable system that supports financial stability for credit union members, improves transparency, and advances the statutory mission of credit unions to meet the credit and savings needs of their members, especially those of modest means.8Furthermore, the NCUA conducts targeted fair lending examinations and supervision at federal credit unions to assess compliance with federal fair lending laws and regulations. These reviews are critical to identifying discrimination and fostering financial inclusion. In August 2023, the NCUA encouraged the industry to review and comply with previously issued guidance addressing prohibited discriminatory practices in automated underwriting systems. Specifically, the agency encouraged credit unions to review system parameters to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation.In addition to appraisal bias oversight examinations, the NCUA joined with the other Federal Financial Institution Examination Council agencies in June to issue proposed guidance for reconsideration of value for residential real estate valuations. The proposed guidance advises on policies that financial institutions may implement to allow consumers to provide information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified in the original appraisal.As part of its consumer financial protection efforts, the NCUA's Consumer Assistance Center also resolves consumer complaints against federal credit unions with total assets up to $10 billion and, in certain instances, federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. In 2022, the Consumer Assistance Center responded to 10,589 written complaints, 1,842 inquiries, and 30,232 telephone calls from consumers and credit unions concerning consumer financial protection regulations.Finally, the NCUA regularly presents webinars promoting financial literacy and financial inclusion. Over the past year, the agency has hosted webinars on appraisal bias, elder financial abuse, and minority depository institutions. In addition, the agency participates in national financial literacy initiatives, including the interagency Financial Literacy and Education Commission.Supporting Minority Depository InstitutionsSupporting minority depository institution (MDI) credit unions is a longstanding priority for the NCUA. MDI credit unions represent approximately 10 percent of federally insured credit unions, and there are presently 498 such credit unions. These MDIs have more than five million members and exceed $66 billion in assets.In 2015, the NCUA established its MDI Preservation Program and has since sought new ways to assist MDI credit unions, their members, and the communities they serve. In 2022, the NCUA launched the Small Credit Union and MDI Support Program, allocating resources to assist MDIs in addressing operational challenges such as staff training, examinations, and improving earnings. In 2023, the NCUA allocated 10,000 staff hours across its three regional offices for the program.This year, the agency also issued customized guidance to examiners to provide insights into MDIs' unique business models and members' needs. The guidance assists examiners in understanding MDIs' distinct business model compared to other mainstream financial institutions by providing instruction on how to use MDI peer metrics instead of traditional peer metrics.Notably, while MDIs tend to be smaller institutions, they have relatively strong financial performance. As of the end of the second quarter of this year, MDIs averaged about $133 million in total assets, yet their return on average assets and net worth ratios were higher than federally insured credit unions overall and equal to credit unions with assets exceeding $1 billion. Meanwhile, their charge-off levels were consistent with the levels reported for both larger credit unions and credit unions overall.Congress recently authorized all MDIs to be eligible for Community Development Revolving Loan Fund grants and loans. Previously, MDIs required the low-income credit union designation to qualify. In the 2023 grant round, 42 MDIs received more than $1.4 million in technical assistance grants. The amount of funding MDIs received was a five-fold increase from the level of funding provided in 2022.Finally, the NCUA in October hosted an MDI Symposium that discussed how the agency can better serve these institutions. The MDI Symposium brought together MDI credit unions and industry stakeholders to learn about the challenges faced by MDIs. Sessions included case studies of successful MDI business models for replication. The NCUA plans to leverage this information to further support its MDI Preservation Program. And, as part of the NCUA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Summit for credit unions in early November, the NCUA held a session that discussed MDI challenges and strategies for success.Advancing Diversity, Equity, and InclusionThe NCUA is fully committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the agency and the credit union system.The agency uses data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, including the Office of Personnel Management's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility index, to inform its data-driven DEI strategies and activities.9 The agency's internal practices to promote DEI are also wide-ranging. For example, the NCUA's employee resource groups serve more than 30 percent of agency staff, surpassing the industry standard membership goal of 10 percent. Further, the NCUA's special emphasis program educates staff on cultural diversity and provides dedicated support for employees and managers with disabilities.In addition, the NCUA routinely recruits employees with diverse backgrounds and seeks to ensure broad applicant pools for vacancies. These diversity recruitment efforts are aimed at attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals from underrepresented groups, including Hispanics and candidates with disabilities. In 2023, the NCUA conducted a targeted barrier analysis to identify hiring and retention challenges for women and Hispanic employees. In addition, the agency has consistently exceeded the federal employment rate goals for employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities since 2017.10 Slightly more than 59 percent of the NCUA's managers are women.The NCUA has additionally built a diverse supplier network to obtain innovative solutions and the best value, particularly in technology and IT solutions. During 2022, the agency awarded $32.8 million of reportable contract dollars to minority and women-owned businesses. That figure represents 45 percent of the agency's contracting dollars, an increase of 8 percentage points from the prior year.Credit unions may also assess their DEI policies and programs through a voluntary credit union diversity self-assessment offered annually.11 Credit union submissions of their self-assessment have no bearing on their CAMELS rating, and examiners cannot access the data. The NCUA reports credit union diversity data only in the aggregate. The agency encourages credit unions to use this tool to support their DEI efforts.In 2022, 481, or 10 percent of all credit unions, submitted a self-assessment. The figure represents an all-time high for submissions to the NCUA. Of those submissions, 302 were federally chartered credit unions, 178 were federally insured and state-chartered, and one was a non-federally insured, state-chartered credit union. The number of CUDSA responses in 2022 is twice as much as the 240 self-assessments submitted in 2021.Finally, to support credit union accomplishments in DEI and provide further guidance, the NCUA hosted its fourth DEI Summit in Washington, D.C., in early November. This now annual event provided a forum for hundreds of credit union stakeholders to network, share best practices, and meet with thought leaders on ways to expand their DEI efforts. The event also highlighted the importance of allyship in helping to achieve the NCUA's and credit unions' DEI goals and improve the financial prospects and futures of families across the country.Rulemaking ActivitiesSince May, the NCUA Board has engaged in several rulemakings on topics like MDI preservation, member expulsion, financial innovation, fair hiring, and charitable donations. These rulemakings have aimed to implement laws required by Congress and strengthen the credit union system.In May, the NCUA Board approved a proposed rule that would add “war veterans' organizations” to the definition of a “qualified charity” that a federal credit union may contribute to using a charitable donation account. The NCUA Board approved the proposed rule noting the attributes of “veterans' organizations” as defined by section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code are aligned with the purposes of the current charitable donation account rule. A “qualified charity” is a section 501(c)(3) entity defined by the Internal Revenue Code and must be both a non-profit and be organized for a charitable purpose. The final rule will be considered on November 16.In June, the NCUA Board approved proposed changes to the interpretive ruling and policy statement on the agency's Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program. The proposal would amend an existing interpretive ruling and policy statement to update the program's features, clarify the requirements for a credit union to receive and maintain an MDI designation, and reflect the transfer of the MDI Preservation Program administration from the agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to its Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion. Proposed amendments to the interpretive ruling and policy statement also include incorporating recent program initiatives, providing examples of technical assistance an MDI may receive, establishing a new standard for MDIs to assess their designation periodically, and updating how the NCUA will review an MDI's designation status, among other changes. This rule is pending.Additionally, the Board finalized a rule in July to implement requirements of the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act of 2022.12 This regulation streamlines procedures for credit unions to expel a member in cases of serious misconduct.In September, the NCUA Board approved a financial innovation final rule that provides flexibility for federally insured credit unions to utilize advanced technologies and opportunities offered by the financial technology sector. The final rule specifically provides credit unions with options to participate in loans acquired through indirect lending arrangements and financial technology. With the adoption of this final rule, the limits previously found in the NCUA's regulations are replaced with policy, due diligence, and risk-management requirements that can be tailored to match each credit union's risk levels and activities.Lastly, the NCUA Board in October approved a proposed rule that would incorporate the NCUA's Second Chance Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement, and statutory prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act into the agency's regulations. This proposed rule would allow people convicted of certain minor offenses to work in the credit union industry without applying for the NCUA Board's approval. It would also amend requirements governing the conditions under which newly chartered or troubled federally insured credit unions must notify the NCUA of proposed changes to their board of directors, committee members, or senior executive staff. The comment period closes on January 8, 2024.Legislative RequestsWhile the credit union system continues to perform well overall, several amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act would provide the NCUA with greater flexibility to effectively regulate the credit union system and protect the Share Insurance Fund in light of an evolving economic environment, a changing marketplace, and technological advancements.Central Liquidity Facility ReformsAs noted previously, the NCUA Board unanimously supports a statutory change to restore the ability of corporate credit unions to serve as CLF agents on behalf of a subset of their member credit unions. Such legislation would better allow the CLF to serve as a shock absorber for liquidity events within the credit union system.On February 28, 2023, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow corporate credit unions to purchase CLF capital stock on behalf of a subset of their members.13 This legislation would permit corporate credit unions to contribute capital to provide coverage for smaller members with less than $250 million in assets. Liquidity risks within the credit union system are rising, and timely consideration of this bill would better protect the credit union system from future liquidity events.Restoration of Third-Party Vendor AuthorityThe risks resulting from the NCUA's lack of vendor authority are real, expanding, and potentially dangerous for the nation's financial infrastructure. Other independent entities, including the Government Accountability Office, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and the NCUA's Office of Inspector General, have identified this deficiency as inhibiting the NCUA from fulfilling its mission to safeguard credit union members and the financial system. And, it is the NCUA Board's continuing policy to seek third-party vendor authority from Congress.14The agency is working within its current authority to address this growing regulatory blind spot, but it is evident that additional authority is needed. There has also been a shift in credit union leaders' understanding of the value of the NCUA having the same vendor authority as the federal banking agencies. The benefits include credit union access to NCUA examination information when conducting due diligence of vendors, fewer requests from the NCUA to credit unions to intervene with vendors experiencing problems, and fewer losses to the Share Insurance Fund.The potential for such resulting losses to the Share Insurance Fund is real. The NCUA's Office of Inspector General stated that between 2008 and 2015, nine CUSOs contributed to material losses to the Share Insurance Fund. The report noted one of the CUSOs caused losses in 24 credit unions, some of which failed. According to NCUA staff calculations, at least 73 credit unions incurred losses between 2007 and 2020 as losses at CUSOs roll onto credit union ledgers and lead to liquidations.15The absence of third-party vendor examination authority limits the NCUA's ability to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with these vendors. Vendors typically decline these requests or refuse to implement recommended actions. This limitation exacerbates any exposure credit unions have to the operational, cybersecurity, and compliance risks that can arise from these relationships. Without the authority to enforce recommended corrective actions, the NCUA is unable to effectively protect credit unions and their members.Furthermore, the growing reliance on third-party services in the credit union industry poses a systemic risk to the credit union system. Five core banking processors, for example, handle more than 90 percent of the credit union system's assets. A failure of one of these critical third parties could cause hundreds of credit unions and potentially tens of millions of their members to lose access to their funds simultaneously. Such a vendor failure, in turn, may result in a loss of confidence in the financial sector. Ensuring proper oversight is imperative, as CUSOs and third-party vendors are poised to capitalize on financial institutions' growing appetite for artificial intelligence and real-time payment services.If granted third-party vendor authority, the NCUA would implement a risk-based examination program focusing on services that relate to safety and soundness, cybersecurity, Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act compliance, consumer financial protection, and areas posing significant financial risk for the Share Insurance Fund.Additional Flexibility for Administering the Share Insurance FundThe recent turmoil in the banking sector, growing liquidity risks within the credit union system, and rising interest rate risk all highlight the need for the NCUA to have additional flexibility for administering the Share Insurance Fund.Specifically, the NCUA requests amending the Federal Credit Union Act to remove the 1.50 percent ceiling for the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio from the current statutory definition of “normal operating level,” which limits the ability of the Board to establish a higher normal operating level for the Share Insurance Fund. A statutory change should also remove the limitations on assessing Share Insurance Fund premiums when the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund is greater than 1.30 percent and if the premium charged exceeds the amount necessary to restore the equity ratio to 1.30 percent.16Together, these amendments would bring the NCUA's statutory authority over the Share Insurance Fund more in line with the FDIC's authority as it relates to administering the Deposit Insurance Fund. These amendments would also better enable the NCUA Board to proactively manage the Share Insurance Fund by building reserves during economic upturns so that sufficient money is available during economic downturns. This more counter-cyclical approach to managing the Share Insurance Fund would better ensure that credit unions will not need to impair their one percent contributed capital deposit or pay premiums during times of economic stress, when they can least afford it.ConclusionThe NCUA stands ready to address the impact of the evolving economic and business cycles within the credit union system. The NCUA will continue to monitor credit union performance and coordinate with other federal financial institution regulators, as appropriate, to ensure the overall resiliency and stability of our nation's financial services system and economy.Thank you again for the invitation to testify about the NCUA's programs and operations. 

This week in crypto, the fallout of Binance's $4 billion fine continued, new NFT games are launched, and CoinShares released their latest report on institutional crypto investments.  Binance's former CEO, CZ, is facing an uncertain future as a judge deliberates on whether to permit his departure from the U.S. before his February 2024 sentencing. CZ recently pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act related to Binance's anti-money laundering policies. While he initially obtained release on a $175 million bond, allowing him to return to the UAE where his family resides, prosecutors raised concerns about a potential flight risk due to his considerable wealth and the absence of an extradition treaty with the UAE. In response, the judge temporarily halted CZ's foreign travel privileges. The sentencing in February 2024 carries the possibility of a prison term ranging from a few months to a maximum of 10 years, and CZ's future endeavors may be influenced by the judge's decision on his travel restrictions. Australian exchange Swyftx has partnered with blockchain forensic firm TRM Labs to combat fraud in the cryptocurrency space. Following government data reporting a substantial $146 million loss in cryptocurrency, the collaboration aims to enhance security measures. Swyftx and TRM Labs are launching a pilot project, encouraging 2,000 customers to activate two-factor authentication on their accounts and complete a course jointly developed by the two companies. As an incentive, participants will receive AUD $10 (~$6.6) in Bitcoin. Swyftx's COO, Jason Titman, highlighted the exchange's success in halting approximately $2 million worth of crypto scams, emphasizing the typical progression of fraud from social media to banking systems and ultimately reaching exchanges. This initiative aims to curb fraudsters in the Australian market following a reported $2 million hack on a local exchange.  BinaryX has launched an AI-based battle royale adventure game, AI Hero, introducing innovative elements of AI technology, Battle Royale, and GameFi. Following the Open Beta release in October, the game utilizes AI-generated content to dynamically shape the gaming experience, altering the world, generating quests, NPC interactions, and events for a unique playthrough each time. With 20 participants simultaneously entering the game, AI plays a crucial role in creating a personalized and ever-changing adventure. PvP gameplay adds intensity, encouraging players to gather resources, craft superior gear, and outmaneuver rivals among the 20 participants for victory. Most interestingly, players have the opportunity to mint NFT heroes after the launch, participating in a competitive mode with potential mining rewards.  Crypto institutional investment marked their ninth consecutive week of inflows, as reported by CoinShares. In the past week alone, inflows reached $346 million, contributing to a total of $1.663 billion for the year. Institutional traders are also gaining exposure through exchange-traded products (ETPs), bringing stability and legitimacy to the space. Bitcoin remains a dominant choice, attracting $312 million in new inflows last week. Ethereum ETPs experienced a significant surge, with a 915% increase in inflows to $33.5 million. Institutional investments in digital asset products have reached their highest point since the late 2021 bull market, with total assets under management (AuM) reaching $45.3 billion. The surge in momentum followed the announcement of spot Bitcoin ETF applications in the US, and Ethereum ETF applications further fueled positive inflows into Ethereum ETPs. Anticipation is high for the approval of spot ETFs in 2024, offering another avenue for institutional exposure.

Today's Headlines: As of the latest update, Israel and Hamas are on the verge of finalizing a deal to temporarily halt the ongoing conflict. Israel's Cabinet has given approval for the release of around 50 women and minors among the 240 hostages held by Hamas, reciprocated by the release of 150 Palestinian prisoners by Israel. This includes teenage boys, girls, and women, arrested during West Bank raids framed as counter-terror operations against Hamas. Israel plans to allow 300 aid trucks daily into Gaza through the Rafah crossing and provide more fuel. The truce might extend if Hamas releases additional hostages though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to resume military operations once the truce concludes. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Israel next week. In a legal development, Maryland's 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a stringent gun law, deeming the handgun licensing statute, enacted in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Similar legal challenges loom over other Maryland gun laws, including the assault weapons ban and restrictions on carrying guns in public. The CEO of Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, pleaded guilty to a felony related to the platform's failure to prevent money laundering. CEO Changpeng Zhao resigned, and Binance agreed to a $4 billion settlement, acknowledging violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. The company will undergo monitoring and compliance measures for five years. In the realm of corporate drama, negotiations are underway at OpenAI to potentially reinstate CEO Sam Altman. Investors and employees, including many threatening to quit, are advocating for Altman's return while OpenAI's widely-used product, Chat GPT, experienced global outages. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Israeli Cabinet approves cease-fire with Hamas that includes release of some 50 hostages NY Times: Who are the Palestinian prisoners who could be released in a hostage deal? Axios: Israel and Hamas agree to hostage deal, four-day pause in fighting in Gaza Axios: Blinken planning to travel to Israel next week for talks on war in Gaza WA Post: Federal judges overturn Maryland handgun licensing law AP News: Largest crypto exchange Binance fined $4 billion, CEO pleads guilty to not stopping money laundering Bloomberg: Sam Altman, OpenAI Board Open Talks to Negotiate His Possible Return Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Amanda Duberman and Bridget Schwartz Edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A reading of a new essay and legal exploration from CoinCenter https://www.coincenter.org/its-time-to-have-the-conversation-is-the-bank-secrecy-act-unconstitutional/ Today's Sponsor: Kraken Kraken: See what crypto can be - https://kraken.com/TheBreakdown Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribe to the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW

88MWhce9wToCCENbRgfZ6X54Dx8HF4bYY79YkYN9nXeqCDmykzXuq48HWe6k9eZDkA4iYpLbTsvpXPnAGCALHTTMLUp8cWi OR DONATE HERE: https://www.monerotalk.live/donate COFFEE: https://gratuitas.org/ GUEST LINKS: https://x.com/mkfsext4 https://x.com/escuelitabtc https://x.com/libertadcal TIMESTAMPS: (00:00:00) Monerotopia Introduction | Live from Monero Soccer Stadium in Formosa, Argentina. (00:01:51) Alessandro and Kapu introduction. (00:19:00) Alessandro and the Copa Monero. (00:40:34) Monerotopia Price Report Segment w/ Bawdyanarchist. (01:01:26) Monerotopia Viewers on Stage Segment w/ Twitter Spaces. (01:24:14) Monerotopia News Segment w/ Tuxsudo and Doug. (01:30:37) Monero gets value from use. (01:31:29) Monero.com surpassed Cakewallet in downloads. (01:32:27) Monero reading list for the curious. (01:32:52) Monero on the front page of the Economic Times in India. (01:35:19) Is the Bank Secrecy Act unconstitutional? (01:37:38) Help fund Monerokon. (01:43:33) Monerotopia Finalization. NEWS SEGMENT LINKS: Monero gets value from use: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/IfezcNwNTX Monero.com surpassed Cakewallet in downloads: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/KNaiiW9g2L Monerokon multisig wallet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/6FjTe6MZ1r Monero reading list for the curious: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/bjhk4OKvvN (https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/bjhk4OKvvN) Help fund Monerokon: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/xywsvzujAM Singapore wholesale CBDC is going live: https://cointelegraph.com/news/singapore-central-bank-trial-live-wholesale-cbdc German parliament member is pro BTC and against the digital euro: https://cointelegraph.com/news/german-parliament-member-staunch-opponent-of-digital-euro-all-in-on-bitcoin Kazakhstan officially launches the digital tenge: https://cointelegraph.com/news/kazakhstan-officially-launches-digital-tenge IMF said CBDCs CAN replace cash: https://cointelegraph.com/news/imf-head-cbdcs-replace-cash-help-financial-inclusion (https://cointelegraph.com/news/imf-head-cbdcs-replace-cash-help-financial-inclusion) Monero on the front page of the Economic Times in India: https://x.com/thestoiccoiner/status/1725132861404254341?s=46&t=mVZ0A2C1bwwnAvgawJjlw Is the Bank Secrecy Act unconstitutional?: https://x.com/neerajka/status/1724797788847034495?s=46&t=mVZ0A2C1bwwnAvgawJjlw SPONSORS: GUEST SEGMENT: Cakewallet.com & Monero.com PRICE REPORT: https://localmonero.co/ Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE! The more subscribers, the more we can help Monero grow! XMRtopia TELEGRAM: https://t.me/monerotopia XMRtopia MATRIX: https://matrix.to/#/%23monerotopia%3A... ODYSEE: https://bit.ly/3bMaFtE WEBSITE: monerotopia.com CONTACT: monerotopia@protonmail.com MASTADON: @Monerotopia@mastodon.social MONERO.TOWN https://monero.town/u/monerotopia Get Social with us: X: https://twitter.com/monerotopia INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/monerotopia/ DOUGLAS: https://twitter.com/douglastuman SUNITA: https://twitter.com/sunchakr TUX: https://twitter.com/tuxpizza

In this episode of Unchained, Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at Coin Center, explains why the IRS's proposed broker rule for tax reporting in crypto could harm the crypto industry as well as the security and privacy of users. He explains how Coin Center thinks the IRS should accomplish its aims, and why that would even work for collecting taxes on DeFi gains.  Additionally, Peter explains why he believes the Bank Secrecy Act might be unconstitutional and how that could potentially affect developers building in crypto.  Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: What the IRS's proposed broker rule entails for crypto tax reporting and why this could have a negative impact on the industry What responsibilities brokers in the crypto space now face Why the IRS didn't use Congress's amended language from the infrastructure bill Why Peter argues that the IRS's new proposed broker rule on crypto is unconstitutional and the principles at stake The alternative approaches Peter suggests the IRS could adopt for more effective and fair regulation Why Peter has concerns for crypto developers about the potential application of the Bank Secrecy Act What actions Coin Center is undertaking to advocate for changes in the Bank Secrecy Act to better align with crypto realities Why Coin Center is appealing in its lawsuit against the Treasury Department over the OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash Thank you to our sponsors! Arbitrum Foundation Popcorn Network Guest Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at Coin Center Previous appearances on Unchained:  Why the SEC Is Probing Yuga Labs and Coin Center Is Suing Treasury How Coin Center Is Helping Define The 'Big Fuzzy Gray Area' Of Blockchain And Cryptocurrency Law Why the SEC's Proposed Rules Affecting DeFi Could Violate the First Amendment Links IRS Crypto Regulation Coin Center: Electronic Cash, Decentralized Exchange, and the Constitution The Blockchain Association's letter opposing tax regulations proposed by the IRS CoinDesk: How the Crypto Industry Responded to the IRS Proposed Broker Rule Patriot Act  California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz Bank Secrecy Act Coin Center: Broad, Ambiguous, or Delegated: Constitutional Infirmities of the Bank Secrecy Act Tornado Cash Coin Center: U.S. Treasury sanction of privacy tools places sweeping restrictions on all Americans Coin Center is suing OFAC over its Tornado Cash sanction Denial of Coin Center's motion in its case against the US Treasury over OFAC sanctions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coin Center's Peter Van Valkenburgh believes that the U.S. Treasury could use the Bank Secrecy Act in a dark way against crypto developers. In this episode of Unchained, Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at Coin Center, explains why the IRS's proposed broker rule for tax reporting in crypto could harm the crypto industry as well as the security and privacy of users. He explains how Coin Center thinks the IRS should accomplish its aims, and why that would even work for collecting taxes on DeFi gains. Additionally, Peter explains why he believes the Bank Secrecy Act might be unconstitutional and how that could potentially affect developers building in crypto. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform.Show highlights | What does the IRS's proposed broker rule entail for crypto tax reporting and why this could have a negative impact on the industryWhat responsibilities do brokers in the crypto space now faceWhy the IRS didn't use Congress's amended language from the infrastructure billWhy Peter argues that the IRS's new proposed broker rule on crypto is unconstitutional and the principles at stakeThe alternative approaches Peter suggests the IRS could adopt for more effective and fair regulationWhy Peter has concerns for crypto developers about the potential application of the Bank Secrecy ActWhat actions Coin Center is undertaking to advocate for changes in the Bank Secrecy Act to better align with crypto realitiesWhy Coin Center is appealing in its lawsuit against the Treasury Department over the OFAC sanctions on Tornado CashThank you to our sponsors! Arbitrum Foundation Popcorn NetworkGuest | Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at Coin CenterPrevious appearances on Unchained: Why the SEC Is Probing Yuga Labs and Coin Center Is Suing TreasuryHow Coin Center Is Helping Define The 'Big Fuzzy Gray Area' Of Blockchain And Cryptocurrency LawWhy the SEC's Proposed Rules Affecting DeFi Could Violate the First AmendmentLinks | IRS Crypto RegulationCoin Center: Report Electronic Cash, Decentralized Exchange, and the ConstitutionThe Blockchain Association's letter opposing tax regulations proposed by the IRSCoinDesk: How the Crypto Industry Responded to the IRS Proposed Broker RulePatriot Act California Bankers Assn. v. ShultzBank Secrecy ActCoin Center:Report Broad, Ambiguous, or Delegated: Constitutional Infirmities of the Bank Secrecy ActTornado CashCoin Center:U.S. Treasury sanction of privacy tools places sweeping restrictions on all AmericansCoin Center is suing OFAC over its Tornado Cash sanctionDenial of Coin Center's motion in its case against the US Treasury over OFAC sanctions-Unchained Podcast is Produced by Laura Shin Media, LLC. Distributed by CoinDesk. Senior Producer is Michele Musso and Executive Producer is Jared Schwartz. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The House Financial Services Committee has been investigating the possibility of the Federal Reserve creating a Central Bank Digital Currency. In this episode, hear experts unpack the nuances and implications of this idea during three hearings, and discover how you can play a part in shaping the future of American currency. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Operation Choke Point Frank Keating. November 7, 2018. The Hill. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Staff. May 29, 2014. U.S. House of Representatives. Digital Asset Glass-Steagall James Rickards. August 27, 2012. U.S. News & World Report. Audio Sources September 14, 2023 Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Witnesses: Yuval Rooz, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Digital Asset Paige Paridon, Senior Vice President and Senior Associate General Counsel, Bank Policy Institute Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute Raúl Carrillo, Academic Fellow, Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law School Clips 27:35 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Look, the Constitution is clear. Only Congress has the authority to coin money and regulate the value of such money. And we've heard the same from Fed officials, right before this committee, and most recently from Vice Chair for Supervision, Michael Barr, who last week told an audience in Philadelphia and I quote, "The Federal Reserve would only proceed with the issuance of a CBDC with clear support from the executive branch and authorizing legislation from Congress." The Biden Department of Justice agrees, saying, quote, "there would be substantial legal risks to issuing a CBDC without such legislation." 32:05 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): CBDC is just one type of publicly issued digital dollar and would be issued, backed, and regulated by the Federal Reserve and have the full faith and backing of the US government. This could serve as an alternative to existing forms of payments and have a benefit, including instant payment settlement, provide a medium for cross border transactions, and foster greater financial inclusion. More than 130 countries have begun to explore their own government backed digital currencies. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India have already commenced pilot programs, and a digital Euro pilot could be launched as early as 2028. Meanwhile, the US remains far behind amid increasing and blatant information about features of digital currency. While concerns about data privacy and government surveillance are real, especially in countries that do not respect human rights and privacy, a CBDC does not have to be designed that way. We could employ an architecture that would protect personal data while including anti-money laundering and terrorist financing features. 33:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): It is counterintuitive that my colleagues should be raising concerns about data privacy while thousands of private companies, domestic and foreign, are surveilling, aggregating, and selling consumer data each and every day. 33:45 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): I'm announcing and inviting my colleagues to join the Congressional Digital Dollar Caucus. This forum will educate members on critical issues relating to the development, design, and potential implementation of a government issued digital dollar. I plan to invite innovators, technologists, academics, and other experts to share their findings and development. I hope my colleagues will join me in this exploration. 34:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): The use of anonymous cash has plummeted and more of our transactions are occurring online and under surveillance, tracked and aggregated by financial services companies. Indeed China has turned that fact into a tool of full spectrum surveillance of its citizens. This is why I've introduced the Ecash Act. This bill directs the Treasury to design and pilot a digital version of cash and would complement the Fed-issued CBDC. It would allow individuals to make instant peer to peer payments with no consumer data or transaction tracking and without the use of a bank account. 36:10 Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN): The need to protect Americans' right to financial product privacy is at an all time high. That's why I introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act with over 50 of my colleagues. This bill prevents unelected bureaucrats from creating a tool for financial surveillance if not open, permissionless, and private, like cash, a CBDC is nothing more than a CCP-style surveillance tool that will oppress the American way of life and we're not going to allow that to happen. 38:20 Dr. Norbert Michel: In my testimony, I argue that the United States should not launch a Central Bank Digital Currency, a CBDC. Advocates for a CBDC tout many potential benefits, but there's nothing unique about the technology that would provide those supposed benefits. 39:00 Dr. Norbert Michel: A CBDC in any form would be a direct liability of the central government, a digital tether to its citizens such that it would radically alter the existing public-private relationship that already exists in our monetary arrangement. 39:25 Dr. Norbert Michel: First, issuing a CBDC would not help preserve the status of the United States dollar, it would likely damage it. Proponents argue that because China has launched a CBDC, the United States must keep up by launching its own. Others make the narrower claim that the US must launch a CBDC to keep up with broader technological changes in the payment sector. But anyone who chooses to do so can transact digitally in U.S. dollars right now. The CBDC does not take us from a world with zero or a few digital transactions to one filled with digital transactions. Moreover, the dollar's renowned status is owed to the strength of the American economy and its legal protections for private citizens relative to many other countries. Unlike in many other places, Americans do not have to live in constant fear that the government will take their money. However, if the US creates a CBDC, anyone who wants to use the dollar would lose a layer of protection from that type of government abuse. 40:30 Dr. Norbert Michel: The second myth is that a CBDC would expand financial inclusion by providing a new source of financial services for America's unbanked and underbanked populations. Again, though, this is not a technological problem. In other words, the CBDC itself does not accomplish this goal. The private sector already enables us to transact digitally, and it has been steadily shrinking the number of Americans without financial services for years. We also know, because the FDIC asked them, that unbanked and underbanked Americans primarily are in that situation because either they don't have enough money to have an account, or they don't want to give their personal information to a bank or the government. And what should be obvious is that a lack of sufficient income is a much broader economic problem than a CBDC or financial service technology. While some proponents argue that a CBDC lowers the cost of providing financial services, that's true only if the government subsidizes those costs or chooses to waive the same level of regulatory scrutiny it requires of private firms. And that level of scrutiny, it turns out is more than just a costly mandate that the government has placed on private firms. It's also the one that causes those unbanked Americans to say they don't trust banks. It's also the same one that requires people to hand over their personal information to private companies, and as a result potentially to the government. If the government removes that mandate for all financial service providers, there would be no cost advantage to a CBDC. 42:05 Dr. Norbert Michel: That brings me to my last myth, the idea that a CBDC could somehow enhance financial privacy. Currently, Americans are forced to hand over personal information to financial institutions. Those institutions are required to track transactions, and the government can access that information without a warrant. The fourth amendment is supposed to protect Americans from the government gaining access to this kind of information, unless they show probable cause and obtain a warrant. But it no longer protects Americans when it comes to financial information. And the only buffer left is that the government must go through the financial institution to obtain that information. Introducing a CBDC would remove this last layer of protection. It would place all financial transactions either in a government database or leave them a keystroke away. 44:15 Paige Paridon: We believe that at this point there is little evidence that a CBDC would bring measurable benefits to the US economy or consumers. Furthermore, a CBDC could upend the commercial banking system and create financial instability. 44:30 Paige Paridon: CBDC can take one of two general forms: a wholesale CBDC, which would be used only by financial intermediaries, and a retail CBDC, which could be used by consumers and businesses. To date, most research and attention has been focused on a retail, intermediated, account-based model in which consumer's CBDCs would be held in an account at a bank or another financial intermediary, like an asset held in custody. The CBDC could not be used by the bank to make loans in the way that dollar deposits are used today. Any transfer of $1 deposit from a bank to a CBDC is $1 unavailable for lending to businesses or consumers. By attracting deposits away from banks, a CBDC likely would undermine the commercial banking system in the United States and severely constrict the availability and increase the cost of credit to the economy. 46:30 Paige Paridon: With respect to financial inclusion, a review of the reasons why certain individuals are unbanked makes it clear that a CBDC would be unlikely to meaningfully increase financial inclusion. For example, FDIC data reveals that many respondents are unbanked because of privacy concerns, and intermediated CBDC is unlikely to mitigate those concerns, given that it would presumably come with the same know-your-customer requirements that currently apply to banks. 54:35 Christina Parajon Skinner: So privacy rights are the clearest place to start. Today, individuals can enjoy comprehensive privacy in their payments transactions by using cash. Now, although most central banks have suggested that CBDC is not going to replace cash, that near-term promise can't be guaranteed over the longer term, and the insinuation that CBDC is necessary or inevitable seems motivated by a view that cash will eventually become obsolete. But because central banks don't have the technology presently to offer cash-like privacy, a digital currency -- unless it's radically redesigned -- will bring with it the ability for the state to monitor or surveil its citizens' payments activity. 55:20 Christina Parajon Skinner: I'd like to focus on the impact of a CBDC on the Federal Reserve. Certainly since 2010, the power and authority of the Fed has grown considerably, and Congress's responsibility to oversee the Fed requires it to understand how a CBDC could further empower the central bank but also how it might weaken it. On the one hand, CBDC could result in a larger central bank balance sheet. Issuing CBDC would increase the liability side of the Fed's balance sheet if the total of bank reserves, repos, and cash balances largely remained unchanged. So if the liabilities with CBDC increase, so too much the Fed's assets. The Fed could buy more Treasury securities to match CBDC, but that could possibly invite pressure on the Fed to issue more CBDCs to in turn absorb more government debt. And overall, that dynamic could further erode the limited fiscal discipline that we have remaining. A CBDC could also affect the Fed's independence in the way that it would establish a direct relationship between the central bank and the real economy for the first time in history. One result of that relationship would almost certainly be the further erosion of the line between monetary and fiscal policy. When central banks begin to issue liabilities directly to the people, it will become much more difficult for the central bank to justify their provision of liquidity to banks and the financial system, as opposed to households, especially during a crisis. And effectively this could open the door to political pressure on the Fed to provide liquidity assistance to households during turbulent economic times. But these sorts of household level interventions would radically transform the central bank and its purpose and role within society. 57:40 Christina Parajon Skinner: So it does not inherently improve financial inclusion unless it's paired with accounts for all citizens, which the central bank itself has already recognized as infeasible. 59:15 Raúl Carrillo: Today, I support the call for a digital dollar system, including CBDC, Fed accounts, and Ecash. 1:02:15 Raúl Carrillo: Indeed, the only way to evolve beyond the surveillance status quo is to establish a direct digital dollar interface with consumers where the Fourth Amendment and other protections may actually apply. If we truly care about privacy, we should treat the banking and blockchain industries' appeals to partnership as suspect, based on legal and technological grounds alone. We can build a retail CBDC and Fed account system with superior protections compared to what exists now and superior protections to the systems that are being built around the world currently. 1:02:50 Raúl Carrillo: So today I also advocate for the inclusion of digital cash, as detailed in the Electronic Cash and Hardware Security and Secured Hardware Act, the Ecash Act, re-introduced by Representative Lynch. Today, Ecash devices available on a smart card or a phone card would serve as digital counterparts to cold hard American cash. These devices would not make payments over the internet. Instead, they would store Treasury issued digital dollars on card hardware to enable everyday small dollar transactions for everyday people. These transactions would be subject to the BSA/AML regime, and as a boon to law enforcement, we can set privacy-sensitive security controls and caps on transactions and usage. However, the cards would in no instance be capable of generating data that companies and agencies can abuse. We preserve a place for privacy within public infrastructure. The Ecash Act harkens back to the past to the days when President Lincoln established the banking and cash system that we still use today. And it also harkens to an exciting, inclusive, safe digital future. 1:08:05 Paige Paridon: CBDC, because it would be a direct liability of the central bank, it would be perceived as the ultimate safe asset. So from that perspective, particularly during times of economic stress, it could attract depositors to pull their money out of the banking system to flee or run to a CBDC if there was perceived concern about the banking system or the financial system overall. So every dollar that currently resides in a bank account can be deployed for useful purposes in the economy, primarily through lending. Every dollar that is pulled out from the banking system and put into a CBDC is one less dollar that could be put to good economic use. And that is why we have a fundamental concern with a retail CBDC, given the flight-to-quality risks. 1:09:35 Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): 130 countries, representing 98% of the global economy, are now exploring digital versions of their currencies, including the United States. Almost half of these countries are in advanced development pilot or launch stages of their CBDCs. Can you discuss how CBDCs may shape the future global financial landscape? What would it mean for the United States if we instead chose to stay on the sidelines of this race? Raúl Carrillo: Thank you very much for the question, Representative Waters. My opinion is that it is incumbent upon the United States to provide leadership with respect to an inevitable process that is going to occur across the world. It is clear that we're all moving to digital fiat currency. The question is what sort of protections are going to attend digital fiat currency? 1:12:35 Raúl Carrillo: I hear a lot of concern across the political spectrum in this committee about the power of Silicon Valley. And if you do not create an alternative to the corporate systems that collect data, or promise to protect it and then collect it en mass, which is even worse and common in the blockchain industry, then what is going to happen is that Silicon Valley is going to win. And frankly, I don't think anybody here wants that. But in order to preserve the space that we have for public money and not make it a big tech enterprise, we, in fact, have to move forward with digital fiat currency. 1:13:50 Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): One of the key characteristics of sound money is that it facilitates permissionless, peer-to-peer transactions like cash. Currently, of the 100+ countries developing a central bank digital currency, none of them are developing a permissionless system. Every one of them is developing a permission system, including the United States Federal Reserve. So when we talk about permissions, we can kind of get something from the Federal Reserve's own report of that. They said in their report that it should be privacy-protected, intermediated, widely transferable, and identity-verified. Mr. Michel, Professor Skinner, in your view, is it possible to be both privacy-protected and identity-verified? Dr. Norbert Michel: No, in my view, it's not. Once the information is in a system, it's in a system and somebody is going to get it and it's going to get out. And I just quickly really want to say I'm very happy to hear everybody here on the panel is pro-Fourth Amendment. The problem, of course, as you know, is that the Bank Secrecy Act, and the anti money laundering regime runs right over the Fourth Amendment. So that's what needs to be fixed. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): It's already a problem in third party hands, but this wouldn't even be in third party hands. But, you know, Professor Skinner, what's your view? Christina Parajon Skinner: My view is no, that that's not possible right now, and central banks have essentially admitted as much. And to the extent such technology is or could be under development, it's extremely immature. And I think the point to emphasize here is that inherently there will be a tradeoff to the extent central banks create CBDC, between identity verification and privacy. And more than likely central banks will always choose identity verification because they will never feel comfortable sacrificing the national security goals that they see as accompanying robust identity verification. 1:24:35 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): Decisions in United States v. Miller and Maryland v. Smith gave us the third party doctrine. Under that doctrine. if you voluntarily provide information to a third party, the Fourth Amendment does not preclude the government from accessing it without a warrant. Dr. Michelle, can you explain how the third party doctrine has impacted Americans' financial privacy? Dr. Norbert Michel: Yes, they practically have none at the moment partly because of this. But I also want to clarify, because of something that was just said on the panel. The Fourth Amendment is the one that amends the Constitution to the United States, which protects American citizens from the government. So this is exactly the issue and it was brought up in the cases in the 70s, when the Bank Secrecy Act was challenged. If the Bank Secrecy Act were not there, the banks and financial institutions that we have would not be required by the government to collect the data that they are, that is a requirement in the Bank Secrecy Act. And everybody can go back and look at those cases, that was always an issue as to whether this was constitutional and in violation of possibly the Fourth Amendment. So between the combination of the Bank Secrecy Act, the Fourth Amendment issues, and the third party doctrine, Americans, although many of them don't realize it, have very little financial privacy at the moment. 1:26:05 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): How would the adoption of a CBDC further erode Americans' reasonable expectation of financial privacy? Dr. Norbert Michel: I believe it would remove the last layer that we have, quite simply, instead of having to go through the financial institution, the government would have that information either in a central database or a keystroke away. 1:31:05 Raúl Carrillo: We envision hardware devices. So those can be cards, similar in size to an existing debit or credit card, or they can be secured SIM cards, or something like it, on a phone that would enable hardware based transactions and for people to make payments as they do today with paper cash for everyday things without fear of government or corporate surveillance, which occurs in tandem when we use digital payments today. 1:32:20 Raúl Carrillo: I would clarify that the point of Ecash is that it does not operate online. It is actually open, permissionless, and private, in the sense that you don't need a blockchain or a banking intermediary. 1:35:45 Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI): In your testimony you wrote, "any transfer of $1 deposit from a commercial bank or credit union to a CBDC is $1 unavailable for lending to businesses or consumers." Can you expand a little bit on that statement about how an adoption of an intermediated CBDC would impact credit availability and the cost of banking services? Paige Paridon: Sure. Happy to, thank you. So I think there's a misconception generally, that $1 transferred from a deposit account to a CBDC would mean that CBDC would still be able to be used for lending and investment in the economy the way that dollar deposits currently are now. And that is not the case of CBDC, even if intermediated. In other words, even if the services including onboarding and other services that commercial banks currently provide, even if those services were provided by banks with respect to a consumer's CBDC, the fact is the bank would really only hold that CBDC in the same manner it holds an asset in custody. So it would have to essentially keep that CBDC under the proverbial mattress and it would not be able to be redeployed in the form of loans. 1:41:20 Paige Paridon: If it was an intermediated CBDC, banks would essentially hold CBDC as a custodian. That's right, they wouldn't be able to lend out some portion of the CBDC as they do deposits. 1:42:10 Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL): If you had 100%, CBDCs was all the money supply, you'd have no lending, right? So doesn't any proportional increase in the amount of a CBDC in an economy shrink the economy? Paige Paridon: Well, there could be shifts to other forms of ways to fund lending. Banks could borrow in the wholesale markets, they could potentially borrow from the Federal Reserve. So I'm not necessarily sure it's a one-to-one relationship. 1:46:25 Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE): Ms. Skinner, in your testimony, you mentioned how a CBDC could lead to the Federal Reserve's independence being threatened. Can you speak more on that? Christina Parajon Skinner: Yes, certainly. Thank you for the question. So in the first instance, to the extent the Federal Reserve doesn't change the composition of its balance sheet otherwise, issuing a CBDC will increase its liabilities, which means that it has to match that increase in liabilities by purchasing more assets. So the first thing that we would think about when the Fed would purchase more assets would be buying more Treasury securities. That being said, with the potential for the Fed to issue more CBDC, thereby giving it more headroom to buy more Treasury securities, would be likely to put some pressure on the Fed at some point down the line from the Treasury to issue that CBDC to absorb more government debt, which we call monetary finance or monetizing the deficit. Before World War Two, the Fed essentially operated under the thumb of the Treasury so that during wartime and otherwise, the Fed could effectively monetize the deficit. And really today, that's anathema to an independent central bank. There were other things that the Fed could also be pressured to buy to match an increase in CBDC, like corporate bonds. Now our recent experimentation in corporate bonds has put some question around whether this too could politicize a central bank because inevitably if central banks buy corporate bonds, they are picking winners and losers in the economy. Now, the Fed has been pretty neutral in its approach, but there has been a lot of pressure on the central bank to, for example, buy green bonds in order to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy and certainly other central banks do actively green their corporate bond portfolios. 2:23:05 Dr. Norbert Michel: I believe this is a question of centralization versus decentralization. And if you have a CBDC, you ultimately have one major point of failure. One way of doing this would be to have the Fed have a database. Well, we know the Fed's been hacked. Even if the Fed has multiple databases, it's the Fed being hacked, as opposed to having multiple private companies all across the country. If Capital One, for example, has a hack or a cybersecurity problem, everybody in the country is not immediately at risk, only their customers, and that's a problem for them. 2:25:25 Rep. William Timmons (R-SC): Based on your research, can you explain what, if any, technological advantage a CBDC has over the private sector? Dr. Norbert Michel: None. And this should be this is properly viewed as a government reaction to a private innovation. We can call it Bitcoin or you could just call it distributed ledger technology in general. That's what this is about. This is about the government seeing an innovation that possibly threatens their control over the payment system and it is a movement to come up with something that takes that back and it just so happens that what they're coming up with here is something that goes even further than where we are without the CBDC. 2:26:45 Christina Parajon Skinner: The status of the dollar is undergirded by our commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, having a judiciary that enforces property rights, and perhaps most importantly, maintaining the dollar as a stable store of value. So for there, it's important that the Fed maintain its fight against inflation and with the issuance of the CBDC, there will absolutely be a propensity to over-issue, to for example, monetize the deficit and if that were to happen that would undermine the status of the dollar. 2:29:45 Paige Paridon: A so-called flight to quality is something that we fear would be almost inevitable. Were a retail CBDC to be issued by the Federal Reserve, in times particularly of financial stress or instability, a CBDC would be viewed likely as the ultimate safe asset and depositors would likely be incentivized to pull the deposits out of the banking system and put them into CBDCs as a safe asset, which would reduce the availability of deposits available to lend out, and moreover, increase the cost of credit. 2:31:10 Raúl Carrillo: President Lincoln created cash after the Civil War in order to help everybody have day to day transactions throughout our economy. Today we have cutting edge technology in various other sectors in the government, including in the US military where they use stored value cards known as Eagle Cash in order to make offline payments. 2:33:15 Yuval Rooz: If the US government were to decide to issue a retail CBDC, unlike wholesaled CBDC, I think that it is going to be critical for the government to show an evidence that there is no ability for the government to see transactions of citizens. I personally would be against such an act. 2:35:05 Yuval Rooz: If we wanted to have privacy included in the smart contract of the money, it would state that any movement of money would only be visible to the sender of money and the receiver of money for example, and the issuer of money would be blinded. So all that the issuer would see is the overall balance, but would not see any underlying movements of the money, for example. March 8, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Witnesses: Jerome Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Clips 53:50 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Turning to a topic that's been a subject here for nearly four years: Central Bank Digital Currencies. Article One of the Constitution, reserves coins and money issuance to the Congress and we've in turn delegated that to the US Treasury, which has since 1912 engaged the Federal Reserve as their fiscal agent. You've testified here many times before that to issue a Central Bank Digital Currency that would be have to be authorized by statute by Congress. Is that still your testimony? Jerome Powell: So that is absolutely the case as it relates to a retail CBDC. There are potential forms of a wholesale CBDC that you would need to look at, it's less clear. But we've always been talking about retail CBDC and that's something we would certainly need Congressional approval for. Rep. French Hill (R-AK): What would be a parameter on something that's not a retail CBDC where you think that could be issued in some form or fashion without Congress's direct statutory authorization? Jerome Powell: It would be, for example, something between banks, so it would look an awful lot like a bank reserve. And you might ask, Well, why would we need it? And that's a really good question, too. But just something that's literally within a wholesale market. Rep. French Hill (R-AK): But that speaks that you might have a blockchain between banks and the Fed using a Central Bank Digital Currency token to settle transactions institutionally inside the US. 1:15:40 Jerome Powell: We did go out for comment in general on a CBDC a year or so ago and I do expect that we'll go out, I can't give you a date, but we'll certainly go out and we engage with the public on an ongoing basis. We're also doing research on policy and also on technology. That's what we're up to. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): The Boston Fed has a partnership over there with the folks from MIT Media Lab, they're doing a great job, but it says here that the discussions would include technical experimentation. I was just wondering, at what level are you talking about making decisions on architecture for a retail CBDC? Jerome Powell: We're not at the stage of making any real decisions. What we're doing is experimenting, in kind of early stage experimentation. How would this work? Does it work? What's the best technology? What's the most efficient? We're really at an early stage but we're making progress on sort of technological issues. The policy issues are equally important though. You know, we haven't decided that this is something that the financial systems in the country want or need. So that's going to be very important. 1:18:15 Jerome Powell: A CBDC is going to be years in evaluation. 1:18:30 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): You know, before the greenback, everybody had their own currency. You know, you had rail rail companies, you had coal companies, you had, you know, state banks that were authorized to issue their own currency. But when the greenback came out, all of those various currencies went to zero, because the greenback had the full faith and credit of the United States behind it. I'm worried about a lot of these Stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies. Do they go to zero when we come up with a CBDC that has the full faith and credit of the United States behind it? We've got 1000s of these out there, and you've got people investing millions and millions of dollars, well trillions right now. And I'm just thinking if we had those advantages built into a CBDC? Wouldn't those alternatives go to zero, if they did not have the transparency and the full faith and credit that we enjoy? Jerome Powell: So certainly, unbacked cryptocurrencies that don't have any intrinsic value, but nonetheless, trade for a positive number, I've never understood the valuation of those. Stablecoins, many of them are really drawing on the credibility of the dollar. They're dollar denominated mainly, dollar-based reserves, although we don't know what's in the reserves because there's no regulation. 2:16:05 Jerome Powell: What we say about permissionless blockchains is that they have been vehicles for fraud -- Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): 0.24% if you follow your own report on fraud. It's a fraction of what it is with the US dollar. May 26, 2022 House Financial Services Committee Witness: Lael Brainard, Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Clips 2:08:30 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): Vice Chair Brainard, we saw how dangerous it can be when the government weaponizes the financial system for political purposes under the Obama administration's Operation Choke Point. More recently, the Canadian government instructed banks to freeze accounts linked to the trucker protests over vaccine mandates. Vice Chair Brainard, without appropriate safeguards, would a CBDC make it easier for the federal government to block individuals it disagrees with from accessing the financial system? Lael Brainard: So I really don't see CBDC as raising questions that are different from deposits and bank accounts, for instance. And the paper that was released in January, in particular, talks about an intermediary model, akin to what we see with commercial bank deposits, where the central bank doesn't have any direct interaction with consumers, doesn't see transactions by consumers, but there are intermediaries and, very importantly, including banks that would be responsible for both identity verification and for keeping that transaction data private. So in that sense, I don't see it it's as really any different than the issues that are raised with commercial bank deposits. June 16, 2021 Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy Witnesses: Eric B. Lorber, Senior Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Clips 43:33 Eric Lorber: The number of transactions which are elicit that use Bitcoin or blockchain technology is actually fairly low percentage wise it's in I believe, below 1% or somewhere around there. So it's fairly small. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Seth Hertlein, VP Global Head of Policy at Ledger, and Michael Mosier, Co-Fouder of legal boutique Arktourous, Build Exante - FinCEN, Treasury, and Chief Technical Counsel at Chainalysis join us on today's show to explain the modern financial surveillance apparatus. FATF, FinCEN, AML/KYC, OFAC...the blacklists, the greylists. How does it all work? Who makes the rules? ------

The Bank Secrecy Act requires your financial institutions to snitch on you every time you engage in certain kinds of financial transactions. What's the benefit in terms of reducing crime? Nick Anthony says it's hard to tell. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The Vivek Ramaswamy Show, Vivek engages in a riveting discussion with his college friend, cryptocurrency expert Mark Lurie. This dialogue centers around cryptocurrency's role in modern financial systems and its interaction with traditional regulations. Mark insightfully dives into topics like Bitcoin's initial appeal, the potential disruption caused by crypto, and its need for a distinct regulatory approach. The latter half of the episode explores securities law, the concept of 'Know Your Transaction', and possible changes to accommodate crypto in these laws. Finally, a fascinating talk about crypto's ability to check the administrative state, serve as an opt-out jurisdiction, and its potential long-term impacts ensues. The episode concludes with reflections on a recent political event they both attended.--Donate here: https://t.co/PE1rfuVBmbFor more content follow me here:Twitter - @VivekGRamaswamyInstagram - @vivekgramaswamyFacebook - http://facebook.com/VivekGRamaswamyTruth Social - @VivekRamaswamyRumble - @VivekRamaswamy--Time-codes:00:01:14 - Vivek introduces Mark Lurie, a cryptocurrency authority, who starts sharing his insightful views on the subject.00:05:00 - Mark discusses the potential impact of cryptocurrency on the traditional financial system, highlighting its ability to disrupt the status quo.00:08:25 - Vivek delves into the idea of 'opting in' to traditional regulations for legal protections, bringing new perspectives to the crypto community's autonomy.00:14:19 - Mark introduces the concept of 'Know Your Transaction' (KYT), proposing it as a bridge between the crypto and traditional financial worlds.00:19:00 - Vivek comments on the purposeful vagueness of securities laws, questioning its intention to empower regulatory bodies.00:24:30 - Mark talks about how cryptocurrency can serve as a check and balance on the administrative state, sparking debates on checks and balances.00:26:30 - The discussion concludes with Mark and Vivek envisaging the long-term goals of cryptocurrency and its potential societal impact. 

Arthur Hayes is an entrepreneur and the former CEO of BitMEX. In my first interview with Arthur, we discuss the state of the world at the moment: what happened with FTX, money printing, the coming collapse, debt jubilees, the need to acquire assets outside the system like Bitcoin, good and bad AI scenarios, and a powder keg of issues that'll hit the markets this fall.  - - - -  Arthur Hayes was the co-founder and former CEO of BitMEX, which was one of the largest crypto exchanges and derivatives platforms. In 2021, its average daily trading volume was over $2 billion. Hayes was famously charged in the southern district of New York for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. He got 2 years probation and a $10 million fine.  But Hayes remains an authoritative voice within the crypto and Bitcoin communities. Nic Carter called him “One of the good guys of crypto.” He now has a mission to help spread financial literacy and educate investors, which he does through regular medium posts, columns in leading journals and interviews with podcasters. And, he has a knack for calling the market. In this short interview, we pack in a surprising number of issues: Hayes's investment strategy, and views on crypto and Bitcoin; opinions on the FTX scandal; fragility in the banking sector; historical currency debasements and the inevitability of a coming collapse; the use of debt jubilees to right society; investing in assets that can weather the coming storm; the impacts of AI; and the debt ceiling.

“You're basically putting this powder keg together of a situation that's going to be exploding in Q3 and Q4 this year. And so, while I think ultimately it will be good for Bitcoin, it could be quite volatile on the up and the downside”— Arthur HayesArthur Hayes is an entrepreneur and the former CEO of BitMEX. In my first interview with Arthur, we discuss the state of the world at the moment: what happened with FTX, money printing, the coming collapse, debt jubilees, the need to acquire assets outside the system like Bitcoin, good and bad AI scenarios, and a powder keg of issues that'll hit the markets this fall. - - - - Arthur Hayes was the co-founder and former CEO of BitMEX, which was one of the largest crypto exchanges and derivatives platforms. In 2021, its average daily trading volume was over $2 billion. Hayes was famously charged in the southern district of New York for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. He got 2 years probation and a $10 million fine. But Hayes remains an authoritative voice within the crypto and Bitcoin communities. Nic Carter called him “One of the good guys of crypto.” He now has a mission to help spread financial literacy and educate investors, which he does through regular medium posts, columns in leading journals and interviews with podcasters. And, he has a knack for calling the market.In this short interview, we pack in a surprising number of issues: Hayes's investment strategy, and views on crypto and Bitcoin; opinions on the FTX scandal; fragility in the banking sector; historical currency debasements and the inevitability of a coming collapse; the use of debt jubilees to right society; investing in assets that can weather the coming storm; the impacts of AI; and the debt ceiling.- - - - This episode's sponsors:Iris Energy - Bitcoin Mining. Done Sustainably Ledn - Financial services for Bitcoin hodlersBitcasino - The Future of Gaming is hereLedger - State of the art Bitcoin hardware walletWasabi Wallet - Privacy by defaultUnchained - Secure your bitcoin with confidence-----WBD663 - Show Notes-----If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following:Become a Patron and get access to shows early or help contributeMake a tip:Bitcoin: 3FiC6w7eb3dkcaNHMAnj39ANTAkv8Ufi2SQR Codes: BitcoinIf you do send a tip then please email me so that I can say thank youSubscribe on iTunes | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | Deezer | TuneIn | RSS FeedLeave a review on iTunesShare the show and episodes with your friends and familySubscribe to the newsletter on my websiteFollow me on Twitter Personal | Twitter Podcast | Instagram | Medium | YouTubeIf you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.

The saga continues with an episode that really should come with its own trigger warning for being just too sexy. Take a deep breath…-Safe spaces of yore (David's establishment clause victory)-The Finality Question, or: Losing My Jurisdiction-A death row case creates strange bedfellows and scrambles Sarah's grand theory of the Roberts court-David can't wait to tell you about this Bank Secrecy Act case-Is anyone still listening?-What happens when you pick the wrong boyfriend?-Gorsuch is annoyed-Excited for escheatment!-The Murdaugh trial: Proof of Stupid-Should we feel bad for the Georgia grand jury foreperson?Show Notes:-City of Ocala, Florida, Petitioner v. Art Rojas, et al.-Supreme Court asks for more briefs on important election-law case-Links to SCOTUS opinions-Was the Alex Murdaugh Guilty Verdict Too Hasty?-That one juror