I think people have misunderstood something important about blockchain and money laundering in the wake of the Dutch/Razzlekhan arrests. Which is that it was mostly normal TradFi AML that made it hard for them to launder their BTC, rather than inherent blockchain transparency.
They could *own* BTC no problem. They could create new wallets and transfer the BTC from wallet to wallet no problem. They could even tumble the BTC and get new BTC that weren't easily traceable back to the original heist. They just couldn't convert that BTC to USD.
Their problem was pretty much the same as the problem of someone with $100 million in cash who wants to be able to spend normally, out of a bank account, with some kind of plastic card. That's hard! If the cash is ill-gotten. You can't just deposit it at your local Chase.
Dutch/Razzlekhan were approaching regulated financial institutions saying "can we open an account and put lots of BTC in it" and the institutions said "sure, where's it from" and they couldn't answer credibly. THAT was their problem. Just like it would be with USD cash.
Crypto regulation is centered on "on-ramps and off-ramps" and it was the off-ramps that tripped up these guys. That's because global regulators have done a pretty good job of regulating crypto exchanges, not because crypto is inherently transparent.
Are NFTs good for money laundering? This one's more interesting. If you buy an NFT for $ and then sell it for $$$$$$ to a wallet that pays with tumbled BTC, that *might* be a way of passing a very cursory AML check?
It's risky, though, and the thing about money laundering is you only need to get caught once. If you have lots of ill-gotten money, you want one place to launder it that you trust. Trying out a bunch of laundering techniques to see what works... won't work.
of course @TheStalwart doesn't need a whole thread, he can just troll a single twete. But yeah, this.
@mfriedenberg@aagalloni@Justin_B_Smith@benyt The value exchange could be enormous on both sides. The Smiths need a plan for what they're going to do when they're sued in any one of dozens of jurisdictions; Reuters can be very helpful there.
Meanwhile, Reuters needs to be able to have a compelling consumer-facing product by the time the Refinitiv money runs out in 2048. They can't count on building it internally; they've tried and failed many times. The Smiths' product could be exactly what they're looking for.
CEOs communicate down, to their employees, and also out, to the world. They’re generally the main spokesperson for the company.
Individual experts within the company are sometimes asked to talk about their area of expertise, while also communicating up to their managers. Out and up is ok.
Trying to work out what this could be. “A successful enforcement action, as well as two related actions, by a U.S. federal regulator and a foreign regulator.” In the amount of about $1b-$2b. cftc.gov/PressRoom/Pres…
I mean, if the CFTC is going to put out blind-item press releases, of course we’re all going to start guessing
But I’m having difficulty thinking of anything recent and CFTC-adjacent that reached $1 billion or more
I have a story out this morning about the staggering amount of unemployment fraud that has happened over the past year — as much as $400b. A quick 🧵: axios.com/pandemic-unemp…
First, yes, this data comes from security companies with skin in the game — ID.me and LexisNexis. Also, crime statistics are always fuzzy. There's nothing here that's precise. On the other hand, government sources aren't disputing these numbers.
The big picture is that unemployment fraud has become systematized. It's sold on a SAAS basis on the dark web, and it's operated by very sophisticated international syndicates in Russia, China, Nigeria, and increasingly Romania.
I’m genuinely interested: Who is the man on the left, and what does the $2.1m number refer to?
Ed Ruscha’s “Hurting the Word Radio #2” was bought directly from the artist in the early 70s by Joan & Jack Quinn, for much less than $2.1m; they sold it for $52m.
cc @MasterworksIO who might be able to shed some light on this