So it's here; the big EU package on AML-measures.

ec.europa.eu/info/publicati…

A lot to say about it.
I will start with what is not highlighted in the package: the fact that it is a major intrusion of human rights.

That is the reason why the European Data Protection Authority fired off this letter, just one month earlier, pointing this out politely.

edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2…
And there is also - at the end - the polite warning that if politicians and governments do not listen and do not achieve a proper balance of human rights to privacy and innocence presumption vis a vis the interest to prevent crime, DPSa will step in and correct it themselves.
To understand where this is coming from, you may want to read this 2018-PhD dissertation, spelling out 17 reasons why the current AMLD-framework of Europe could be annuled and revoked by the EU Court of Justice (like the telco data retention directive).

pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles…
Step 1 in the mission of the EU is: kick out all possible anonymous instruments and make the provision of such instruments prohibited to all players that wish to operate in the market.

This is arranged for in article 58 which speaks of crypto-asset wallets. But what are those?
You would imagine to be able to find this under the definitions area of the directive. But no, the regulation regulates crypto-asset wallets without defining them.

So let's have a look around. Let's head for the regulation that morphes crypto into regular payment instructions.
We find this here, the regulation on information that must pe passed on in payment transactions. It is in essence the obligation of each institution to broadcast personal details alongside the payments over the netwerk.

The EU implements this FATF-idea

ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/l…
The broadcasting personal data idea (of the FATF, now implemented by EU) is an old (bad) idea that has no added value. It turns banks/etc into unpaid and unqualified police officers that are obliged to snitch and give away privacy of their customers.

As I said, the broadcasting of personal data, perhaps nice idea in 2002, is a stupid idea in the current big data era. Why broadcast data to everyone if we have technology to only pull out the really relevant data for individuals suspected by police?

moneyandpayments.simonl.org/2021/01/respon…
Now, did I mention that obliging this broadcasting requirement is like handing out gold nuggets to the likes of Facebook, Applepay and all big data pushers that really want this personal data for their profiling?

Each payment has to have personal data !

moneyandpayments.simonl.org/2019/06/fatf-a…
If I set up a payment institution (and who doesn't these days) I can distribute all private information all over the world. So that's why I think FATF must be renamed Facebook as the Friend.

Oops-> did David Marcus forget to tell Congress that in 2019?

It was obvious from early on that the end goal of the FATF was to rip crypto of its decentralised features and oblige it to comply with the databroadcasting requirements.

Good luck to all decentralised structures when trying to comply

It was also obvious that the Dutch central bank as the crypto-supervisor thought it could use the 1977-sanctions law to start frontrunning the FATF-rules. But the judge intervened. See the story here.

finhstamsterdam.medium.com/dutch-judge-sl…
Now that we know databroadcasting is a stupid idea, let's find that wallet definition, shall we?

Aha, can't really find it, but I do see something as a wallet-adress which is essentially a bank account number for crypto-players. Unless it is a reference to a blockchain-wallet.
So let's reflect on what's happening. The EU regulates a crypto-asset wallet without defining it, but it does apply broadcasting requirements to all crypto-stuff that it can find by pushing old-school bank rules in spite of well known EDPB reservations.

Let that sink in.
For those wondering, will it kill all anonymous wallets.

Yes, it will make them illegal, as the FATF is pushing countries to not license/register companies if they allow communications with unhosted/anonymous wallets.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Simon Lelieveldt

Simon Lelieveldt Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @finhstamsterdam

23 Jul
This is big time gallery play.

Filed same infringement twice.
First time 'No can do-> too early'.
Second time: 'No -> nothing to see here'.

Then: Local Dutch court agreed on the (looks of) infringement.

Notified the @EU_Commission on the verdict.
They never took any action.
So as a reminder, perhaps want to respond to my e-mail then? Image
Image
Read 16 tweets
22 Jul
Ok, let's stop the nuance. EU and FATF do want to kill the use of unhosted wallets. Stop nuancing.

I'll guide you through it then.

1. Start with FATF draft recommendation 91-c here:

cfatf-gafic.org/index.php/docu… Image
2. Read that insurance policies and trust offices will be obliged the new regulation to verify and KYC the beneficiary of payments.

As well as ....... 🥁 ImageImage
3. ... owners and benificaries of safe deposit boxes, accounts and....... 🥁.............. crypto asset wallets.

See article 58 of the regulation. Image
Read 29 tweets
22 Jul
Why did we ever end up with the travel rule on banking (and now crypto)?

And why the heck should we continue?

It is essentially a tool to avoid and duck proper applicability of legal duties by government entities that wanted to free ride big data without caring about privacy.
And why do we accept the fact that the organisation that is imposing the travel rule poses as a normal international government authority when it is actually still an illegitimate project structure maintained to not have to apply human rights charters?

We must recognise the Fatf and its poisonous fruits of recommendations for what they are. A cult of high priests that has achieved in hypnotising and enslaving quite a big community if private and public actors.

Read 12 tweets
19 Jul
Beste volgers,

Dit jaarverslag is erg de moeite waard, voor wat er omfloerst instaat.

Ik zal dat toelichten.
@TRB_nl geeft aan dat ze belemmert worden in het werk. Er was een bank die niet meewerkte.

Dat is echter een understatement. Het gaat namelijk om de top van ING die probeerde te duiken voor ethische vragen rond de beloning Hamers en witwasschandaal.

linkedin.com/pulse/bankiers…
Of, zoals @TRB_nl het heel beleefd formuleert: Image
Read 8 tweets
14 Jul
Even aan mijn zakelijke volgers een korte toelichting waarom ik me zo druk bezig hou met de politieke zaken rond corona en het kabinet en Rutte op de korrel neem.

Dat heeft met wetgeving en betrouwbare overheid te maken. Precies wat er in financieel toezicht ook toe doet.

/1
Als we de overheid en toezichthouders niet meer kunnen aanspreken op het maken van fatsoenlijke wetten en het handelen volgens internationaal aanvaarde verdragen en grondrechten van de mens dan verzaken zij hun taak om zwakkeren te beschermen.

Dan geldt: recht van de sterkste.
Beroepsmatig ploeg ik nogal eens door die wetsvoorstellen heen en het gebrek aan kunde en de overdaad aan framing neemt sterk toe. Daarbij is ook te zien dat met een beetje een aannemelijk en populair verhaal de kamer akkoord gaat met alle wetten. Check grondrechten is minimaal.
Read 22 tweets
13 Jul
Tenslotte wat laatste tweets voor de leden van onze @2eKamertweets

U gaat morgen in debat met een gevaarlijke pathologische narcist die ons land stuk gemaakt heeft. U denkt dat het ergste een motie van wantrouwen of afkeuring is met alle stemmen of grote meerderheid.

Onjuist.
Uw aanname is dat de premier gehoor zou geven aan motie van wantrouwen. Dat zal niet zo zijn. Als laatste troef trekt hij dan een staatsrechtelijk flauwekulletje uit zijn broekzak waar u niet op gerekend heeft. "U kunt mij niet wegsturen want...."

Denk aan het spel na de motie.
Uw focus is ten onrechte op de vraag of de premier het debat al dan niet zou overleven. Uw focus zou moeten zijn: als hij liegt en bedriegt dan krijgen we hem ook niet volgens de regels van het spel weg. Wat dan te doen?

Ik geef u op een briefje dat hij niet vertrekt. Dus...
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(