Irish banks, Bitcoin and Anti money laundering rules

TheBigShort said:
Do you have a link?
Click to expand...
Sorry I am not in a position to link it to this forum,It you Google daily express eu bitcoin you will find it,
TheBigShort can you do a link please
The express has some interesting views on bitcoin right now,,
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
Yes, I have already highlighted coinbase. What odds? Coinbase is, to the best of my knowledge, compliant with all regulatory requirements in the US.
Why is depositing cash proceeds into coinbase an issue, as opposed to say an Irish bank?
Click to expand...

Out!! Cashing out means taking it out...
 
Leo said:
Out!! Cashing out means taking it out...
Click to expand...

Yes I know. Like I have explained to you already, if I sell 1BTC the cash amount is deposited into coinbase a/c electronically. I then withdraw that amount to my bank account, electronically. Its all date and time stamped and under jurisdiction of authorities if they want to examine my accounts.
 
Leo said:
Recent Reuters article, has been under review for a number of years though.
Click to expand...

Yes, and from what Ive read of those links, the ECB is more or less 'monitoring' the situation.
Risks with cryptocurrencies are identified, as is potential usages of cryptocurrency in the future.
What gives?
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes I know. Like I have explained to you already, if I sell 1BTC the cash amount is deposited into coinbase a/c electronically. I then withdraw that amount to my bank account, electronically. Its all date and time stamped and under jurisdiction of authorities if they want to examine my accounts.
Click to expand...

And as I've been trying to point out, money coming out of Coinbase does not necessarily satisfy the obligations of the financial institutions to identify themselves as to the original source of that money. In perhaps a more extreme example, if your bank uses Commerzbank for SEPA processing, your request to transfer funds from Coinbase to your bank account will be refused regardless of whether the amount triggers the more onerous anti money laundering requirements.
 
TheBigShort said:
What gives?
Click to expand...

Defensive much?

Just trying to be helpful pointed to current & previous reports, I didn't suggest regulation was imminent. European volumes lag that of other markets, and in the grand scheme of it are still small money, so I don't think they see it as that high a priority.
 
Leo said:
Defensive much?

Just trying to be helpful pointed to current & previous reports, I didn't suggest regulation was imminent. European volumes lag that of other markets, and in the grand scheme of it are still small money, so I don't think they see it as that high a priority.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help.

But im at a loss as to how, or why, stringent anti-money laundering regulations should be of concern to holders of bitcoin.
 
Leo said:
Yes, and that's not the only money-laundering activity they were hit for either. An attempt to clean up their reputation and the difficulty in meeting their AML requirements for bitcoin transactions is behind their decision to stop processing crypto payments.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link for that? It appears this banks right hand doesnt know what the left hand is doing and needs to gets its act together, more than any real concern about coinbase.
 
TheBigShort said:
Thanks for your help.

But im at a loss as to how, or why, stringent anti-money laundering regulations should be of concern to holders of bitcoin.
Click to expand...

ECB or other central banks introducing further regulation and already existing AML legislation aren't quite the same thing. If you're back on AML, again, for those who bought as a means of speculation, there will be little to worry about, but for those involved in trading they will likely to face problems cashing out as they are unable to satisfy proof of the source of the funds. If Bitcoin is to be a successful currency and not simply a speculation tool, then people are going to be carrying out transactions, right? If they then go to cash out the proceeds of these transactions, that's when AML comes into play.
 
Leo said:
Yep.



Have you a link for that?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, its the same link you provided.
I interpreted that article as Coinbase reacting to Nationwide because of its association with the money-laundering Commerzbank.

Once Commerzbank adopted an internal policy not to deal with cryptos, despite appropriating the blockchain technology itself, it seems reasonable that coinbase would react accordingly. Especially given Commerzbanks track record.
 
Leo said:
those involved in trading they will likely to face problems cashing out as they are unable to satisfy proof of the source of the funds. If Bitcoin is to be a successful currency and not simply a speculation tool, then people are going to be carrying out transactions, right? If they then go to cash out the proceeds of these transactions, that's when AML comes
Click to expand...

Im not so convinced. If im a trader and I buy and sell stock with BTC, I will have an inventory of that stock. A record of when I bought and sold, and for how much bitcoin.
They prevailing value of BTC at any given time can be easily sourced.
AML will only come into play if someone cant explain their holdings.
 
Leo said:
An attempt to clean up their reputation and the difficulty in meeting their AML requirements for bitcoin transactions is behind their decision to stop processing crypto payments.
Click to expand...

This is clearly an issue with the bank, not bitcoin. The article states that some managers flagged problems with sanctioned transactions with countries like Iran, but the transactions occurred anyway. This is what I meant by the right-hand not knowing what the left-hand is doing.
If the bank cannot meet it AML obligations it was a prudent move not to engage with cryptos until it is able to do so.
Coinbase seem wise to avoid anything to do with this bank.
 
TheBigShort said:
Funnily enough, its the same link you provided.
I interpreted that article as Coinbase reacting to Nationwide because of its association with the money-laundering Commerzbank.
Click to expand...

You think Coinbase know, let alone audit who the correspondents are for each bank they deal with? The problem here isn't that Coinbase has decided that Nationwide or Commerzbank are bad and have decided t stop doing business with them, it's the other way around. Commerzbank started refusing crypto payments, that in turn hit Natiowide and then Coinbase. As each refused transaction Coinbase attempt attracts fees, their only option was to stop dealing with that bank.
 
TheBigShort said:
This is clearly an issue with the bank, not bitcoin. The article states that some managers flagged problems with sanctioned transactions with countries like Iran, but the transactions occurred anyway.
Click to expand...

That's just Commerzbank who have clearly had some serious governance issues, but other banks such as Metropolitan, and have also stopped processing cryptos.
 
Leo said:
Commerzbank started refusing crypto payments, that in turn hit Natiowide and then Coinbase.
Click to expand...

While accurate, it is simplification of what is stated in the article.

Attorney General Leslie Caldwell "Commerzbank committed these crimes even though managers inside the bank raised red-flags about its sanction-violating practices.."

In other words, regardless of the existance of bitcoin or not, Commerzbank couldnt satisfy authorities of meeting its AML requirements.
If it cant manage that much in the ordinary course of its affairs, it is prudent that they dont engage in the crypto space while there is at a mininmum, a perceived threat of money laundering practices in that space.
Commerzbank did not fail AML because of bitcoin, it failed AML requirements because of its practices in the normal monetary fiat system.

As far as your other examples above, it appears a mixed bag. Australian government appears to have given green light for trading but banks are somewhat hostile.

At the end of the day, what we appear to be getting to is whether or not authorities will, or can, 'crackdown' on bitcoin?
The question is important as, as citizens in purportedly free and democratic societies, we should have the right to buy and sell what items, products and services we see fit, subject to their legality.
Any notions of banning bitcoin, or crypto, are way off the charts and in total contradiction to the concept of free societies. If we ban bitcoin, then what else?
On the other hand, the most likely outcome is to attempt to regulate, but even that will be problematic. Who will regulate it? In order for central banks to regulate it, then surely it will at a minimum have to be defined as a financial instrument? If not, what business has a central bank got regulating it anymore than it does tins of sardines?
If it is defined as a financial instrument it could of course be subject to rules and regulations within that system, but it remains to be seen if such rules and regulations will impede, hamper, or interfere adversely on its functioning as a financial instrument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top