Podcasts about Bank Secrecy Act

Seth Hertlein is the Global Head of Policy at Ledger and one of the earliest, most persistent advocates for bitcoin self-custody in Washington. Known for his “lone ranger” years as the only lobbyist focused on protecting non-custodial rights, he brings a rare combination of securities law expertise, political insight, and deep conviction about individual property rights. In this episode, Seth joins The Last Free Americans to share how he fell down the bitcoin rabbit hole, why self-custody is a return to humanity's oldest property norms, and how today's policy battles will define digital freedom for generations. We dig into the evolution of financial intermediaries, the history of natural rights from Aristotle to the framers, and the real political forces lining up for and against self-custody.SUPPORT THE PODCAST:→ Subscribe → Leave a review → Share the show with your friends and family → Send us an email: podcast@unchained.com→ Learn more about Unchained: https://unchained.com/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=podcast → Book a free call with a bitcoin expert: https://unchained.com/consultation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=podcastTIMESTAMPS:0:00 – Intro to The Last Free Americans & Seth's unique role in policy2:20 – How a securities regulator became an “accidental crypto lobbyist”5:03 – Early bitcoin reading, monetary policy, and recognizing its political nature7:43 – The aha moment of self-custody: from Ledger device to first withdrawal12:58 – Ownership vs. possession: how financial markets drifted into full intermediation16:40 – Why self-custody is not new: property as a natural human right22:45 – How centralization overtook markets: certificates, DTCC, and efficiency tradeoffs27:58 – 2021: the year Washington and the industry “woke up” to each other33:10 – Keep Your Coins Act, Canadian truckers, and why lawful peer-to-peer matters38:40 – Property rights, natural law, and the framers' blind spots on privacy45:55 – Executive Order 6102, takings law, and lessons for bitcoin52:03 – How the Bank Secrecy Act and third-party doctrine became digital surveillance59:42 – The three camps opposing self-custody: nats-ec hawks, socialists, and bureaucracies1:05:40 – The IRS broker rule, CRA repeal, and precedents for stopping overreach1:11:22 – House vs. Senate language: what “retain the right” really means1:17:14 – Odds of passage in 2024 and why Senate floor time is everything1:22:44 – The global landscape: why America is still the last best hope1:27:50 – What comes next: privacy as the next digital freedom frontier1:32:10 – Closing thoughts on restoring founding principles through BitcoinWHERE TO FOLLOW US: → Unchained X: https://x.com/unchained  → Unchained LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/unchainedcom  → Unchained Newsletter: https://unchained.com/newsletter → Joe Kelly's Twitter: https://x.com/josephkelly  → Seth Hertlein's Twitter: https://x.com/SethHertlein  

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi BurningOn November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims' civil rights.This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government's authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury's action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google's AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google's anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google's ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema's earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google's dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | ReutersAs the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they're perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City's incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | ReutersIn a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn't permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government's tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account's highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam's case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn't file, and ended up with a crushing figure.I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren't drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they're ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court's acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we're no longer talking about a compliance tool—we're talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn't hide money or lie about his income; he just didn't file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR PenaltiesThis week's closing theme is by Henry Purcell.This week's closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell's work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell's music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.It's a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell's talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia's Day approaches, Purcell's music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.And with that, enjoy Purcell's Overture in G minor! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Marty sits down with Kyle Olney to discuss his journey from seizing banks during the financial crisis to becoming a Bitcoin policy advocate, the urgent fight against financial surveillance through the Bank Secrecy Act, and the critical importance of grassroots activism in defending self-custodial Bitcoin rights. Kyle on Twitter: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyleolney Save Our Wallets: https://saveourwallets.org/ STACK SATS hat: https://tftcmerch.io/ Our newsletter: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ TFTC Elite (Ad-free & Discord): https://www.tftc.io/#/portal/signup/ Discord: https://discord.gg/VJ2dABShBz Opportunity Cost Extension: https://www.opportunitycost.app/ Shoutout to our sponsors: Bitkey https://bit.ly/TFTCBitkey20 Unchained https://unchained.com/tftc/ Obscura https://obscura.net/ SLNT https://slnt.com/tftc CrowdHealth https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/tftc Salt of the Earth: https://drinksote.com/tftc Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Newsletter tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Nostr https://primal.net/tftc Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

Zack Shapiro is the head of legal and policy at the Bitcoin Policy Institute and a key architect behind the Peer-to-Peer Rights Fund. He's spent years on the frontlines where law, technology, and human freedom intersect—helping lawmakers and judges understand what it means to hold value in the digital age. In this episode, Zack joins The Bitcoin Frontier to break down why self-custody is foundational to bitcoin's value, how the Clarity Act could define financial freedom for a generation, and why the right to hold your own money might be the most American right of all.We dig into the constitutional roots of property rights, how U.S. law is being stretched to fit a peer-to-peer world, and why the fight for non-custodial software developers will determine the future of bitcoin in America.SUPPORT THE PODCAST:→ Subscribe → Leave a review → Share the show with your friends and family → Send us an email: podcast@unchained.com→ Learn more about Unchained: https://unchained.com/?utm_source=you... → Book a free call with a bitcoin expert: https://unchained.com/consultation?ut...TIMESTAMPS:0:00 – Intro & the mission behind The Last Free Americans series2:00 – What self-custody really means and why it's the foundation of bitcoin's value3:45 – ETFs, financialization, and the fading connection to real bitcoin5:00 – Why self-custody matters more than ever in 20256:15 – How outdated laws are clashing with a peer-to-peer world7:40 – The Clarity Act and the battle for non-custodial rights9:00 – Would bitcoin even be valuable without self-custody?10:00 – How self-custody connects to America's founding values12:00 – The Constitution's protections for holding bitcoin: 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments16:00 – The history lesson: Executive Order 6102 and gold confiscation18:30 – Enumerated powers, the 9th Amendment, and the people's retained rights21:00 – Why protecting non-custodial developers is critical to freedom23:30 – Tornado Cash, Samurai Wallet, and the dangerous new legal precedents27:30 – Knowledge vs. intent: how the DOJ's theories stretch the law31:00 – The risk of calling developers “money transmitters”33:30 – Steelmanning the other side: why regulators see a loophole37:00 – How the Bank Secrecy Act evolved from mob busting to digital dragnet40:30 – From halawa networks to bitcoin: applying old laws to new rails42:30 – The real ideological divide: state control vs. individual liberty46:00 – Why self-custody embodies the American idea of limited government47:30 – If Bitcoin existed in 1776, would the framers have protected self-custody?49:00 – Strategy going forward: the Clarity Act, education, and vigilance52:00 – The political battle ahead: Elizabeth Warren, ICOs, and what's really at stake54:00 – How bitcoin helps the least powerful—and why that matters mostWHERE TO FOLLOW US: → Unchained X: https://x.com/unchained → Unchained LinkedIn:   / unchainedcom  → Unchained Newsletter:

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Tim Hite is the director of policy at Exodus and a former congressional staffer for Rep. Warren Davidson. He helped shape early self-custody legislation—including the Keep Your Coins Act (a playful nod to “KYC”)—and bridges law, technology, and individual rights. In this episode, Tim's discussion kicks off The Last Free Americans miniseries to share the origin story of self-custody protections on Capitol Hill, how “keep your coins” language differs from the Clarity Act's approach, and what meaningful safeguards against CBDCs could look like. We dig into the evolution of property rights in a digital world, why illicit-finance fears are often overstated, and how social media has changed the legislative battlefield.SUPPORT THE PODCAST:→ Subscribe→ Leave a review→ Share the show with your friends and family→ Send us an email: podcast@unchained.com→ Learn more about Unchained: https://unchained.com/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=podcast→ Book a free call with a bitcoin expert: https://unchained.com/consultation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=podcastTIMESTAMPS:0:00 – Intro, disclaimers & why self-custody matters now0:51 – “The Last Free Americans”: series premise1:16 – Tim's path: 2017 bull run, law school, FINRA, and meeting Rep. Davidson3:34 – From Hill staffer to crypto policy: Token Taxonomy Act & early frameworks6:51 – The spark for the Keep Your Coins Act and naming the bill11:12 – Two legislative styles: affirming a right vs. restricting regulators16:24 – Digital ownership as a new chapter in American property rights19:05 – CBDCs vs. self-custody: opposite ends of the spectrum22:30 – Social media's role: sunlight, mobilization, and changing the odds30:34 – The 2020 “unhosted wallet” rule & why KYCs on self-hosted wallets don't fit39:00 – Bank Secrecy Act's $10k threshold, report overload, and diminishing returns41:37 – House passage, Senate path, and realistic timelines for the Clarity Act47:26 – What's next: tokenized securities and the future of self-custody52:58 – Peer-to-peer (with an asterisk): whitelists, accounts, and true control55:01 – Closing thoughts: momentum, vigilance, and “nature finds a way”WHERE TO FOLLOW US: → Unchained X: https://x.com/unchained  → Unchained LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/unchainedcom  → Unchained Newsletter: https://unchained.com/newsletter → Joe Kelly's Twitter: https://x.com/josephkelly  → Tim Hite's Twitter: https://x.com/TimHite  → Jose Burgos (Director of Media Production): https://x.com/DeFBeD

My guest today is Nick Anthony, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a fellow at HRF, and one of the clearest voices dissecting CBDCs, financial privacy, and government overreach. He authored the book “digital currency or digital control?” and advocates for freedom and privacy. In this episode, we explore how governments use propaganda to sell CBDCs as “digital cash,” despite public resistance, and how pilots in China and The Bahamas reveal low adoption and rising coercion. Nick explains why control is a universal temptation across democracies and autocracies, and how the Bank Secrecy Act created 55 years of normalized financial monitoring in the United States. We discuss the distinction between stablecoins and CBDCs, the slow global rollout of digital currencies, and why Bitcoin's censorship resistance remains essential, alongside other freedom tech tools. He also shares insights from his work maintaining HRF's CBDC Tracker, his visit to the European Parliament, and his warning that even if CBDCs fail, today's financial system already operates as a surveillance regime.► If you got value, please like, comment, share, follow and support my work. Thank you!-- SPONSORS --→ Get your TREZOR wallet & accessories, with a 5% discount, using my code at checkout (get my discount code from the episode - yep, you'll have to watch it): https://affil.trezor.io/SHUn→ Shield your bitcoin with time-delayed transactions over multisig with BitVault: https://bit.ly/bitvault_efrat → Have you tried mining bitcoin? Stack sats directly to your wallet while saving on taxes with Abundant Mines: https://AbundantMines.com/Efrat – AFFILIATES –→ Get 10% off on Augmented NAC, with the code YCXKQDK2 via this link: https://store.augmentednac.com/?via=efrat (Note, this is not medical advice and you should consult your MD)→ Watch “New Totalitarian Order” conference with Prof. Mattias Desmet & Efrat - code EFRAT for 10% off: https://efenigson.gumroad.com/l/desmet_efrat → Get a second citizenship and a plan B to relocate to another country with Expat Money, leave your details for a follow up: https://expatmoney.com/efrat → Join me in any of these upcoming events: https://www.efrat.blog/p/upcoming-events -- LINKS –Nick's Twitter: https://x.com/EconWithNick Cato Institute Twitter: https://x.com/CatoInstitute HRF's CBDC Tracker: https://cbdctracker.hrf.org/home Efrat's Twitter: https://twitter.com/efenigsonEfrat's Channels: https://linktr.ee/efenigsonWatch/listen on all platforms: https://linktr.ee/yourethevoiceSupport Efrat's work: ⁠https://www.buymeacoffee.com/efenigson   ⁠Support Efrat with Bitcoin: https://geyser.fund/project/efenigson-- CHAPTERS –00:00 - Coming Up…01:39 - Meet Nick Anthony: Policy Analyst & CBDC Critic03:03 - What Problems CBDC Pretends to Solve?04:48 - CBDCs: Problems and Propaganda08:03 - Real-World Examples: China & The Bahamas13:59 - Ad Break: Trezor, BitVault & Abundant Mines16:39 - Stablecoins vs. CBDCs: A Critical Comparison21:56 - The Future of CBDCs, And Bitcoin's Role24:13 - Financial Privacy, Bitcoin and Cash31:54 - Message to CBDC Legislators33:08 - Nick's Visit to the EU Parliament35:08 - How To Explain Why We Need An Exit36:53 - Wholesale vs. Retail CBDCs

Today's headlines point to a massive potential turning point for crypto markets. Mike Novogratz of Galaxy Digital says macro forces like Fed policy and global liquidity will drive Bitcoin's next major move — just as analysts eye $7.5 trillion in sidelined capital that could flood into risk assets. Meanwhile, Polymarket is seeking funding at a $15 billion valuation, showing surging demand for on-chain prediction markets, and U.S. senators have introduced a bill to ease Bank Secrecy Act reporting limits, potentially reducing regulatory pressure on crypto users. With Bitcoin hovering near $120K, traders are watching closely for the next breakout — could this be the spark that propels BTC into its next leg higher?

Since its passage in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act has fundamentally transformed the relationship between Americans and their financial institutions, creating an unprecedented surveillance apparatus that monitors virtually every financial transaction. What began as a tool to combat tax cheats has evolved into a comprehensive system of financial monitoring that affects everyone.This timely discussion will explore how the Bank Secrecy Act has shaped modern banking, its implications for Fourth Amendment protections, and the urgent need for reform in an era of increasing digital surveillance. Our panel will examine the intersection of financial privacy, technological innovation, and constitutional rights, offering insights into how we can restore the balance between security and liberty.Join us for a critical examination of the Bank Secrecy Act as it reaches its 55th anniversary—a milestone that calls for urgent reflection on the state of financial privacy in America. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Banks have been using natural language processing and machine learning applications for years in managing their anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. But how does the growing adoption of generative AI tools affect how BSA and fraud professionals protect their banks? On the latest episode of the ABA Banking Journal Podcast — presented by Agri-Access — former FDIC official Lisa Arquette shares a regulator's-eye view of generative AI in the BSA world and how regulators have been approaching the technology for their own work. Joined by ABA SVP Heather Trew, Arquette also discusses: The state of play on banks' beneficial ownership reporting obligations. Other elements of implementing the AML Act of 2020. How regulators weigh AML/BSA performance when approving mergers and acquisitions. Fluctuations in AML/BSA compliance investments through the economic cycle. The low number (1%) of BSA-related examinations at the FDIC that result in enforcement actions. Register for the ABA Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference, Oct. 14-16 in Arlington, Virginia.

Days before the anniversary of 9/11, the Treasury rolled out sweeping reforms to the Bank Secrecy Act, a Patriot Act 2.0 aimed at the digital world. These new powers would give government agencies the ability to censor crypto transactions, track your spending, and shut down financial freedom at will.SPONSORS✅ Lednhttps://learn.ledn.io/simplySimply Bitcoin clients get 0.25% off their first loanNeed liquidity without selling your Bitcoin? Ledn has been the trusted Bitcoin-backed lending platform for 6+ years. Access your BTC's value while HODLing.

The panel opened with reflections on the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent violent events, framing them through the lens of The Fourth Turning by Strauss & Howe.Discussion on how history moves in ~80–100 year cycles of crisis and renewal, with Bitcoin and decentralized protocols potentially forming the backbone of the next institutional order.John emphasized perspective, comparing today's turmoil with past upheavals (1960s, 1970s, World Wars), and highlighted the role of media saturation in shaping perceptions.Panelists praised Kirk's willingness to debate respectfully, lamenting the erosion of open dialogue in society.Shifted to macro: China's gold accumulation as a hedge against dollar hegemony, interpreted as part of a global move toward neutral reserve assets—gold today, Bitcoin tomorrow.Deep dive into U.S. financial surveillance: the inefficiencies of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and threats of extending the Patriot Act to digital assets. Panelists argued KYC/AML laws are largely ineffective at stopping crime but very effective at surveilling citizens.Highlighted the DOJ's case against Samourai Wallet as an example of U.S. hostility toward Bitcoin privacy tools.Covered this week's major supply-chain attack on NPM packages, noting minimal impact but using it as a PSA: always verify addresses on hardware wallets and beware phishing scams.Tether launched a U.S.-regulated stablecoin (USAT). The panel explored how this intersects with the Genius Act, which would require stablecoin reserves to be in U.S. Treasuries, effectively creating a new forced buyer of U.S. debt.Quick hits: MicroStrategy denied S&P 500 inclusion (for now), BLS quietly revised U.S. job numbers down by 900k, Gemini goes public, and Michael Saylor positions MicroStrategy as a “Bitcoin capital markets” play. Swan Private helps HNWI, companies, trusts, and other entities go beyond legacy finance with BItcoin. Learn more at swan.com/private. Put Bitcoin into your IRA and own your future. Check out swan.com/ira.Swan Vault makes advanced Bitcoin security simple. Learn more at swan.com/vault.

Senate Democrats have introduced their own framework for crypto market structure, setting up negotiations with Republicans and potentially clearing the way for bipartisan legislation. The proposal gives the CFTC new powers, pushes for exchange registration under the Bank Secrecy Act, flags DeFi for potential oversight, and seeks to ban stablecoin interest. It also takes political aim at Trump-era crypto projects and calls for stronger ethics rules. With both parties now at the table, the next few months could finally bring real progress on U.S. digital asset legislation, even as TradFi and crypto players race ahead with their own market structure experiments. Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheBreakdownBW Subscribe to the newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blockworks.co/newsletter/thebreakdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownBW

Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. For more than two decades, David Tyree lived a double life. On the surface, he was a dedicated agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Behind the scenes, he infiltrated some of the most dangerous organizations in the world, outlaw motorcycle gangs and international drug cartels. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other social media platforms. “I spent years sitting across from people who wouldn't hesitate to kill me if they knew who I really was,” Tyree said during a recent interview. “The stakes were always life or death. But the mission, to dismantle these organizations, was worth every risk.” He is the guest on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast, available for free on their website, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and most podcast platforms. Undercover Against Motorcycle Gangs Tyree's undercover work included working with outlaw motorcycle clubs, also known as “one-percenters.” These organizations often present themselves as brotherhoods of riders but, as the Department of Justice points out, many function as highly structured criminal enterprises. Look for supporting stories about this and much more from Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast in platforms like Medium , Blogspot and Linkedin . “The ‘Big Four' dominate the outlaw motorcycle scene,” Tyree explained. “These groups aren't just about bikes. They're about drugs, weapons, extortion, and serious violence. My job was to get inside and stay alive long enough to make a difference.” Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. According to federal reports, there are more than 300 active motorcycle gangs in the U.S. Some operations are small, but others span hundreds of chapters worldwide, often working hand-in-hand with drug cartels. Cartels, Cash, and Money Laundering Tyree's assignments expanded beyond biker gangs. He went undercover as a drug dealer, then later as a money launderer, targeting powerful South American and Central American drug cartels. Available for free on their website and streaming on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. “These cartels are multinational corporations of crime,” he said. “Drugs, cash, money, violence, it's all part of their business model. They'll work with anyone who helps them move product or clean their dirty money.” Wikipedia describes cartels as alliances of independent drug lords who collaborate to dominate the illegal trade. Tyree saw firsthand how groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Los Zetas waged bloody turf wars while smuggling narcotics across borders. Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast episode is available for free on their website , Apple Podcasts , Spotify and most major podcast platforms. “One day I could be moving fake loads of cocaine, the next day I'd be laundering millions in cash,” he recalled. “The psychological toll was real. You don't just walk away from that without scars.” Shattering the Hollywood Myths Much of what the public knows about undercover work comes from movies and TV. Tyree insists that reality is far different. “One big myth is that agents have to use drugs to prove themselves,” he said. “That's absolutely false. If you do that, you compromise the case. There are ways around those tests of loyalty, and we were trained to handle them.” Another misconception is that undercover life is constant action. In truth, many investigations stretched over a year or more. “Paperwork was just as important as the undercover work,” Tyree explained. “Evidence, lab reports, case files, that's what puts people in prison.” The full podcast episode is streaming now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. As for agents going “soft” on their targets? Tyree dismisses the idea. “You might build rapport, but you never forget who you're dealing with. These are people who thrive on violence and greed.” Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. Even his own family didn't always know the full truth. “I kept a lot to myself,” he admitted. “Sometimes it was to protect them, sometimes just to keep them from worrying.” Battling Trauma, and Cancer The stress of living under a false identity, constantly under threat, took its toll. Tyree admits nervousness was a constant companion early on. “I had to learn techniques to stay calm, to stay focused,” he said. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other social media platforms. As his career wound down, Tyree faced a different kind of fight, cancer. “It was one of the toughest battles of my life, but the same resilience I built undercover helped me through it.” His Cancer diagnosis was the result of a dare and bet. He is a huge advocate for early and frequent health screenings. Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. Life After the DEA Today, Tyree is retired from the DEA but far from finished with his mission. He serves as a Senior Advisor on Financial Crime Detection and Anti-Money Laundering with Valid8 Financial and is an instructor with the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists. With 25 years of experience, he now uses his expertise to help financial institutions, government agencies, and law enforcement combat crime through Bank Secrecy Act, AML, KYC, and due diligence processes. Check out the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other social media platforms. “Whether it was chasing cartels or building compliance systems, the goal has always been the same, protect people, protect society,” he said. Telling His Story Tyree now shares his story through interviews, news outlets, and guest appearances on podcasts like the Law Enforcement Talk Radio show and podcast, which is available for free on their website, also on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and mroe. His recent feature, Police Under Cover Truths, pulls back the curtain on undercover operations, addressing both the myths and the realities of life in deep cover. Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. He also connects with audiences check out the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, where he continues to educate others about the risks of organized crime and the importance of financial vigilance. “I don't glamorize what I did,” Tyree concluded. “It was dangerous, it was messy, and sometimes it was terrifying. But it was necessary. And if people can learn something from my career, whether it's about cartels, motorcycle gangs, or money laundering, then sharing these truths is worth it.” Be sure to check out our website . Be sure to follow us on MeWe , X , Instagram , Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social media platforms for the latest episodes and news. You can help contribute money to make the Gunrunner Movie . The film that Hollywood won't touch. It is about a now Retired Police Officer that was shot 6 times while investigating Gunrunning. He died 3 times during Medical treatment and was resuscitated. You can join the fight by giving a monetary “gift” to help ensure the making of his film at agunrunnerfilm.com . Background song Hurricane is used with permission from the band Dark Horse Flyer. You can contact John J. “Jay” Wiley by email at Jay@letradio.com , or learn more about him on their website . The full interview is streaming now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show website. Get the latest news articles, without all the bias and spin, from the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on Medium , which is free. Find a wide variety of great podcasts online at The Podcast Zone Facebook Page , look for the one with the bright green logo. Police Under Cover Truths: Inside His DEA Career, Cartels, and Motorcycle Gangs. Attributions Valid8 Financial DOJ Wikipedia Business Insider  

Gm! This week Yano was joined by Commissioner Hester Peirce to dive into how the SEC is rethinking and reframing the role that digital assets can play in the financial landscape of the US. In a balancing act between fostering innovation and protecting consumers, Commissioner Peirce's job is an important one to move the industry forward stateisde.  -- Start your day with crypto news, analysis and data from David Canellis. Subscribe to the Empire newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter/empire?utm_source=podcasts -- Follow Commissioner Peirce: https://x.com/HesterPeirce Follow Jason: https://x.com/JasonYanowitz Follow Empire: https://twitter.com/theempirepod -- Join the Empire Telegram: https://t.me/+CaCYvTOB4Eg1OWJh -- SKALE is the next evolution in Layer 1 blockchains with a gas-free invisible user experience, instant finality, high speed, and robust security. SKALE is built different as it allows for limitless scalability and has already saved its 50 Million users over $11 Billion in gas fees.  SKALE is high-performance and cost-effective, making it ideal for compute-intensive applications like AI, gaming, and consumer-facing dApps. Learn more at https://skale.space and stay up to date with the gas-free invisible blockchain on X at @skalenetwork -- Katana is a DeFi-first chain built for deep liquidity and high yield. No empty emissions, just real yield and sequencer fees routed back to DeFi users.  Pre-deposit now: Earn high APRs with Turtle Club [https://app.turtle.club/campaigns/katana] or spin the wheel with Katana Krates [https://app.katana.network/krates] – Chapters: (00:00) Intro (02:14) Early To Crypto (07:45) TradFi Censorship (09:20) Goal of SEC (13:06) Ads (Skale, Katana) (14:36) Token Launches & Transparency (22:43) AirDrops/ICOs  (23:57) Accredited Investor Rules (25:00) Trillion Dollar Private Companies (26:30) Innovation vs Protecting Consumers (29:35) Licensing  (35:52) Ads (Skale, Katana) (37:22) Bank Secrecy Act (40:29) Privacy In Crypto (46:48) Self Custody (49:20) DATs (51:15) New ETFs (55:51) Prediction Markets (57:21) Politicization of Crypto — Disclaimer: Nothing said on Empire is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Santiago, Jason, and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

Donald Trump signs an executive order designed to combat 'debanking,' which deprives individuals and businesses of financial services. How bad is the problem, what's in the Trump order, and will it be enough to rein in regulators that put pressure on banks to cancel customers that supposedly pose "reputational risk"? Or does Congress also need to pass legislation making the changes permanent, reforming the Bank Secrecy Act, and encouraging more bank competition?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marty sits down with Yael, a fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, to discuss the intersection of Bitcoin, AI, and energy policy, the importance of negative rights versus positive rights in legislation, the problems with the Bank Secrecy Act, and practical policy priorities for protecting Bitcoin users and developers. Yaël Ossowski on Twitter: https://x.com/YaelOss Yaël's Website: https://yael.ca/ BPI: https://www.btcpolicy.org/ STACK SATS hat: https://tftcmerch.io/ Our newsletter: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ TFTC Elite (Ad-free & Discord): https://www.tftc.io/#/portal/signup/ Discord: https://discord.gg/VJ2dABShBz Opportunity Cost Extension: https://www.opportunitycost.app/ Shoutout to our sponsors: Coinkite https://coinkite.com Unchained https://unchained.com/tftc/ Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Newsletter tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Nostr https://primal.net/tftc Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

Any donation is greatly appreciated! 47e6GvjL4in5Zy5vVHMb9PQtGXQAcFvWSCQn2fuwDYZoZRk3oFjefr51WBNDGG9EjF1YDavg7pwGDFSAVWC5K42CBcLLv5U OR DONATE HERE: https://www.monerotalk.live/donate TODAY'S SHOW: In this episode of Monero Talk, legal expert Zach Shapiro joins Douglas Tuman to discuss U.S. cryptocurrency legislation, the legal challenges facing privacy tech, and the philosophical divide between building unstoppable systems versus working within regulatory frameworks. Shapiro, who runs a crypto-focused law firm and is involved with the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Peer-to-Peer Rights Foundation, outlines recent bills in Congress—including the Clarity Act and Genius Act—and their implications for developers and privacy advocates. He and Doug debate Bitcoin vs. Monero, focusing on fungibility and censorship resistance, with Shapiro defending Bitcoin's legal positioning and Doug championing Monero's privacy features. The episode also covers ongoing cases like Tornado Cash, the status of Samurai Wallet, and efforts to repeal New York's restrictive BitLicense. TIMESTAMPS: (00:02:12) – Introduction to Zach's background and involvement with the Bitcoin Policy Institute, Peer-to-Peer Rights Foundation. (00:08:13) – Zach's perspective on various technologies: Bitcoin, stablecoins, DAOs. (00:12:21) – Debate on fungibility: Bitcoin vs Monero. (00:17:09) – Is Bitcoin functionally fungible? Legal and policy perspectives. (00:20:00) – Cash vs Bitcoin legal treatment in cases of stolen funds. (00:28:57) – Mining decentralization: ASICs, CPUs, regulatory capture. (00:33:18) – Zach's overall take on Monero vs Bitcoin. (00:36:15) – Explanation of 3 key crypto-related bills (Genius Act, Clarity Act, Anti-CBDC Bill) (00:43:23) – Implications of Section 110 for privacy developers. (00:46:25) – Concerns over Genius Act enabling “backdoor CBDC.” (00:53:00) – What would Satoshi think about current crypto laws and stablecoins? (00:58:02) – Genius Act's effect on algorithmic stablecoins (likely banned). (01:02:12) – Genius Act vs Clarity Act: Pros and cons for Monero. (01:06:01) – Eliminating capital gains for crypto use — is it possible? (01:07:50) – Comments on the Bank Secrecy Act, impact of Calirty Act for Monero, NY's BitLicense, and Monero exchange bans. (01:11:18) - Closing Remarks GUEST LINKS: https://x.com/zackbshapiro Purchase Cafe & tip the farmers w/ XMR! https://gratuitas.org/ Purchase a plug & play Monero node at https://moneronodo.com SPONSORS: Cakewallet.com, the first open-source Monero wallet for iOS. You can even exchange between XMR, BTC, LTC & more in the app! Monero.com by Cake Wallet - ONLY Monero wallet (https://monero.com/) StealthEX, an instant exchange. Go to (https://stealthex.io) to instantly exchange between Monero and 450 plus assets, w/o having to create an account or register & with no limits. WEBSITE: https://www.monerotopia.com CONTACT: monerotalk@protonmail.com ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@MoneroTalk:8 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/monerotalk FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/MoneroTalk HOST: https://twitter.com/douglastuman INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/monerotalk TELEGRAM: https://t.me/monerotopia MATRIX: https://matrix.to/#/%23monerotopia%3Amonero.social MASTODON: @Monerotalk@mastodon.social MONERO.TOWN: https://monero.town/u/monerotalkAny donation is greatly appreciated!Any donation is greatly appreciated!

Is your financial life really private? In this eye-opening episode, Cato Institute's Norbert Michel and Nicholas Anthony take us deep into the world of financial surveillance, starting with the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. What was originally sold as a tool to catch tax cheats has quietly evolved into a sprawling system of government oversight—with banks and financial institutions acting as unwitting watchdogs. From suspicious activity reports to the third-party doctrine, Norbert and Nicholas explain how the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections has happened largely out of public view. They break down the law's legacy, how it expanded post-9/11, and why $10,000 isn't the large sum it once was. But there's reason for optimism. With growing public awareness, privacy-focused tech, and new reform legislation finally on the table, change might be within reach. If you thought your bank account was your business, think again—this episode will make you see it in a whole new light.Show Notes:Norbert Michel and Jennifer J. Schulp, "Revising the Bank Secrecy Act to Protect Privacy and Deter Criminals" Policy Analysis No. 932, July 26, 2022Nicholas Anthony, "The Right to Financial Privacy" Policy Analysis No. 945, May 2, 2023Norbert Michel, "The Bank Secrecy Act Is a Bigger Threat than FISA" Forbes, April 17, 2024Nicholas Anthony and Naomi Brockwell, "The Illusion of Financial Privacy" Reason.com, May 30, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Contribute to Politicology at politicology.com/donate To unlock Politicology+ visit politicology.com/plus This week, Ron Steslow and Jennifer Schulp (Director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives) discuss the Senate passing the GENIUS Act to regulate stablecoins. They dive into the implications of the Bank Secrecy Act and the critical importance of privacy-enhancing tools in the digital age. They explore how new legislation impacts personal privacy, the role of stablecoins in the financial ecosystem, and the potential consequences of government surveillance.   Then, in Politicology+ they discuss political corruption in cryptocurrency and Congressional stock trading. They dive into the lack of political will to combat it, despite public outcry, and the challenges of enforcing ethical standards. Not yet a Politicology+ member? Don't miss all the extra episodes on the private, ad-free version of this podcast. Upgrade now at politicology.com/plus. Send your questions and ideas to podcast@politicology.com or leave a voicemail at ‪(703) 239-3068‬ Follow this week's panel on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://x.com/jenniferjschulp Related Reading:  CNBC - Senate passes GENIUS stablecoin bill, giving crypto industry first major legislative win Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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!

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.

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

“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.

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

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