{
  "id": "R45664",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45664",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 595571,
      "date": "2019-04-03",
      "retrieved": "2019-12-20T19:35:33.046533",
      "title": "Virtual Currencies and Money Laundering: Legal Background, Enforcement Actions, and Legislative Proposals",
      "summary": "Law enforcement officials have described money laundering\u2014the process of making illegally obtained proceeds appear legitimate\u2014as the \u201clifeblood\u201d of organized crime. Recently, money launderers have increasingly turned to a new technology to conceal the origins of illegally obtained proceeds: virtual currency. Virtual currencies like Bitcoin, Ether, and Ripple are digital representations of value that, like ordinary currency, function as media of exchange, units of account, and stores of value. However, unlike ordinary currencies, virtual currencies are not legal tender, meaning they cannot be used to pay taxes and creditors need not accept them as payments for debt. While virtual currency enthusiasts tout their technological promise, a number of commentators have contended that the anonymity offered by these new financial instruments makes them an attractive vehicle for money laundering. Law enforcement officials, regulators, and courts have accordingly grappled with how virtual currencies fit into a federal anti-money laundering (AML) regime designed principally for traditional financial institutions. \nThe federal AML regime consists of two general categories of laws and regulations. First, federal law requires a range of \u201cfinancial institutions\u201d to abide by a variety of AML program, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Second, federal law criminalizes money laundering and various forms of related conduct. \nOver the past decade, federal prosecutors and regulators have pursued a number of cases involving the application of these laws to virtual currencies. Specifically, federal prosecutors have brought money laundering charges against the creators of online marketplaces that allowed their users to exchange virtual currency for illicit goods and services. In one of these prosecutions, a federal district court held that transactions involving Bitcoin can serve as the predicate for money laundering charges. Federal prosecutors have also pursued charges against the developers of certain virtual currency payment systems allegedly designed to facilitate illicit transactions and launder the proceeds of criminal activity. Specifically, prosecutors charged these developers with conspiring to commit money laundering and operating unlicensed money transmitting businesses. In adjudicating the second category of charges, courts have concluded that the relevant virtual currency payment systems were \u201cunlicensed money transmitting businesses,\u201d rejecting the argument that the relevant criminal prohibition applies only to money transmitters that facilitate cash transactions. Finally, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)\u2014the bureau within the Treasury Department responsible for administering the principal federal AML statute\u2014has pursued a number of administrative enforcement actions against virtual currency exchangers, assessing civil penalties for failure to implement sufficient AML programs and report suspicious transactions.\nAs these prosecutions and enforcement actions demonstrate, virtual currencies have a number of features that make them attractive to criminals. Specifically, commentators have noted that money launderers are attracted to the anonymity, ease of cross-border transfer, lack of clear regulations, and settlement finality that accompanies virtual currency transactions. Several bills introduced in the 116th Congress are aimed at addressing these challenges. These bills would, among other things, commission agency analyses of the use of virtual currencies for illicit activities and clarify FinCEN\u2019s statutory powers and duties. Commentators have also identified legal uncertainty as an additional challenge facing prosecutors, regulators, and participants in virtual currency transactions. Moreover, a number of observers have argued that existing AML regulations are likely to stifle innovation by virtual currency developers. In response to these concerns about legal clarity and burdensome regulation, at least one legislative proposal contemplates exempting certain blockchain developers from various AML requirements.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45664",
          "sha1": "7971d07ce9cb7d2f2250b71df7fb6559140c0241",
          "filename": "files/20190403_R45664_7971d07ce9cb7d2f2250b71df7fb6559140c0241.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45664",
          "sha1": "5523da9e96a50aa8d5d3c085f6fd777b8a8112a4",
          "filename": "files/20190403_R45664_5523da9e96a50aa8d5d3c085f6fd777b8a8112a4.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4913,
          "name": "Financial Crime"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}