Bitcoin and Money Laundering: A Comprehensive Overview of Global Regulatory Frameworks

Internationally, there's no single standard or approach to handling this issue, regulation of Bitcoin and whether or not it's legal depends largely on which part of the world you are situated in. Nevertheless, as governments and authorities delve deeper into understanding how to integrate this innovative financial system within their existing frameworks, the likelihood is growing that some level of regulation will be enforced to ensure consumer protection and to curtail unlawful activities. The rapid surge in Bitcoin's valuation in 2017 intensified the clamor for regulation, prompting numerous global regulatory bodies to outline their envisioned frameworks for governing Bitcoin in recent times.

Yet, while Bitcoin's legal status is still under review in many places, more pressing issues demand attention, such as managing individuals involved in or trading Bitcoin determining if it's being utilized to circumvent laws.

Money laundering

The semi-anonymous The decentralized essence of many cryptocurrencies has sparked concerns among authorities, fearing that these platforms might be exploited for money laundering activities. For instance, as early as 2012, the FBI expressed worry that the lack of stringent regulations might facilitate the misuse of Bitcoin for illegal purposes, especially with offshore exchanges being a factor.

Criminal activity / transactions

Additionally, there are apprehensions about digital currencies being employed for unlawful deeds on the internet. Not long after its creation, Bitcoin captured the focus of both US and international regulators due to its growing popularity on the Dark Web—an underbelly of the internet notorious for illegal trade including weapons and illicit drugs. A notable example is the infamous Silk Road market, which exclusively accepted Bitcoin to keep customer identities concealed. The notoriety of Silk Road, and its eventual shutdown by the FBI, led Senator Charles Schumer to label Bitcoin a 'surrogate currency' used to facilitate criminal enterprises.

Regulatory Tactics for AML / KYC Standards

As these risks loom large, numerous countries are putting mechanisms in place to enforce Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols to accurately identify individuals participating in Bitcoin transactions. Typically targeting exchanges or financial bodies facilitating Bitcoin dealings, these regulations are built to thwart the legitimization of assets derived from illegal acts through AML protocols. Meanwhile, KYC measures ensure financial institutions are well-informed of their clients' identities to prevent unauthorized entities—like minors or criminals—from gaining access to specific services.

USA

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury, rolled out guidelines for Bitcoin as far back as 2013, clarifying that while using Bitcoin to buy lawful goods and services wasn't illegal, the act of mining or trading Bitcoin, or running exchanges where Bitcoin transactions occur, falls under 'money service businesses,' thus subjecting them to the same AML and KYC standards as other financial entities.

In 2013, FinCEN took a stance against Ripple (resolved later), highlighting how Ripple's failure to establish a robust AML strategy and report suspect activities concerning financial transactions underscored that cryptocurrency ventures must abide by Money Service Business (MSB) regulations. However, since Ripple operates on a more centralized structure compared to Bitcoin and numerous other cryptocurrencies, it’s improbable to appoint someone as a Bitcoin 'operator' liable to MSB rules. Moreover, FinCEN’s reach extends outside US borders, evident when it took action against the Russia-based BTC-e exchange for contravening US AML regulations, marking a first against a non-US exchange.

EU

The European Union has also embarked on initiatives to make sure exchanges comply with KYC and AML standards, with the European Commission putting forth proposals designed to bring cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers under the EU’s anti-money laundering umbrella, effective July 2017. However, these policies are only applicable for exchanges where cryptocurrency can be swapped for fiat money, effectively excluding many favored exchanges currently in operation. Additionally, these stipulations extend only to cryptocurrency wallet services that provide custodial private key management.

These measures compel exchanges and wallet services to conduct rigorous KYC and AML checks on consumers and any beneficial owners, demanding the collection, processing, and documentation of personal details which must then be shared with state authorities.

Asia

Singapore

Singapore is working towards a statutory framework to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing issues concerning cryptocurrencies. The Minister in Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) noted that although the government cannot regulate the cryptocurrencies themselves, it holds the power to 'limit activities surrounding them if those activities fall within our broader regulatory scope as a financial overseer.'

South Korea

As of January 2018, South Korea unveiled a system to prohibit anonymous accounts in crypto dealings. Previously, Korean banks allowed clients to trade through virtual accounts they provided. However, a decision from South Korean authorities, voicing concerns about such bank accounts, pointed to the development that banks would inherit additional AML duties regarding crypto exchanges, including the obligation to report any suspicious cryptocurrency related transactions.

Regulation of Exchanges

As exchanges as these entry points are pivotal for traders and users connecting with blockchain, regulating these is seen as critically crucial. Therefore, many regions prioritize regulating exchanges so they must implement KYC measures for clients during registration or transaction times. This often involves a stipulation for verified accounts or setting a cap on the threshold of non-verified accounts. Regarding AML measures, the successful enforcement depends on exchanges reporting dubious transactions to financial authorities.

Below, we'll explore the regulatory landscape in the US, Europe, and Asia.

US

The In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) classifies Bitcoin as a commodity. Although it doesn't directly oversee Bitcoin, CFTC holds jurisdiction over commodity futures linked to Bitcoin. Not long ago, CFTC approved a proposal from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange permitting Bitcoin and other digital currencies to be processed similarly to other assets, potentially impacting Bitcoin's market value significantly.

As previously mentioned, Bitcoin trading falls under 'Money Services Businesses' as per FinCEN's definitions.

Across various states, different methods are in place, regarding the control of exchanges or other financial intermediaries. Some, like New York, have embarked on unique licensing systems tailored to cryptocurrencies, whereas states like Texas still apply existing financial statutes to cryptocurrency usage. However, some argue that New York’s license requirements may hamper the fintech sector in utilizing cryptocurrencies within the state.

Europe

The European Central Bank categorizes Bitcoin as a 'convertible decentralized virtual currency.' The European Banking Authority (EBA) has recommended that European banks refrain from engaging in cryptocurrency trades until a regulatory framework is established. In 2016, the European Parliament agreed to create a task force to scrutinize cryptocurrencies, aiming to combat money laundering and terrorism funding. Additionally, the European Commission has proposed that cryptocurrency exchanges and digital wallets should be monitored to deter tax avoidance.

Asia

Singapore

While MAS doesn't oversee the cryptocurrencies directly, it restricts the interconnected activities such as exchanges.

Shanmugaratnam elaborated that MAS, which serves as both Singapore's central bank and financial regulator, doesn't possess authority over the currencies themselves. Still, it can restrict surrounding activities fitting their regulatory domain, like exchanges. Besides tackling money laundering and terrorism financing, these activities include conducting token sales where coins represent securities. For such an event, he explained, 'The requirements like registering a prospectus, obtaining intermediary or exchange operator licenses, will apply,' alongside 'rules on anti-money laundering and terror financing prevention.' He affirmed MAS's intention to consider 'more targeted legislation' for token sales augmenting the pre-existing securities laws.

South Korea

South Korea's regulatory authorities have been diligently probing various cryptocurrency exchanges, particularly in light of the significant hacks that led to the shutdown of Youbit.

To comply with the law, regulators emphasize that exchanges must adhere to certain protocols, including:

• segregating customer funds to ensure their security.
• offering comprehensive explanations of the potential risks involved in cryptocurrency investments.
• confirm users’ real names.
• implementing a robust system to prevent money laundering activities.
• utilizing measures to protect assets, like dispersing cryptographic keys.
• enhancing transparency by sharing transaction information with the public.

Additionally, South Korea has placed restrictions on financial institutions, limiting their ability to provide anonymous virtual accounts, and has mandated exchanges to report significant cryptocurrency transactions. Regulations also prohibit foreigners and minors from engaging in cryptocurrency trading.

Conclusion

The article outlines the diverse strategies and viewpoints that countries worldwide are adopting concerning the oversight of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Some believe that regulation could lend credibility to the sector, whereas certain jurisdictions show little urgency, possibly due to uncertainty about how to regulate. Implementing current regulatory standards could hinder the industry's progress, but devising a new framework might impose hefty costs on taxpayers, a consideration the crypto sector notes with concern. In 2017, cryptocurrencies transitioned from being a niche interest in the tech community to becoming widely recognized. This shift has secured Bitcoin's status as a familiar term both at work and home, seemingly setting the stage for some form of regulation. However, questions remain about the nature of such regulations and their potential impact on the industry. Despite the argument that extensive regulation might impede cryptocurrency's decentralized character, a certain degree of regulation could legitimize the technology and the market. Enforcing Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards serves dual purposes: safeguarding the state and protecting individuals, ensuring companies fulfill their responsibilities to clients and investors.

While the regulation of exchanges differs from that of cryptocurrencies themselves, applying regulatory standards to exchanges can protect consumers and improve market standards, facilitating easier market entry. Exchange regulations may deter market manipulation, though, without oversight, seasoned traders could exploit their expertise to sway the market.

Andrew is a blogger and Technology and Corporate lawyer with qualifications in the UK and Ireland, offering seasoned advice on Fintech, data privacy, and intellectual property matters. He holds a Masters in Corporate Law and advises start-ups in the Fintech space while working with a rapidly expanding e-commerce company in Ireland. Reach out at [email protected].

Crypto Whales are shifting over $500 million in Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), potentially positioning themselves to capitalize on BinoFi (BINO)'s potential surge in the DeFi sector.