Failure to Register with FINCEN Sustains Guilty Prayers by Virtual Currency Exchangers, Money Laundering Observe

Money Laundering See

Insights and news on the world of financial corruption

Failure to Register with FINCEN Sustains Guilty Prayers by Virtual Currency Exchangers

It is a potential crime to conduct a business that exchanges virtual currency and fail to register with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN“), even if the State in which one operates does not impose a similar licensing requirement. A federal district court in Louisiana has reaffirmed this principle in United States v. Lord, in which the defendants unsuccessfully sought to withdraw their prayers of guilty to offenses based on a failure to register with FinCEN.

The defendants are father and son. According to the court opinion, in 2013, they began to operate a bitcoin business through a website called localbitcoins.com, which advertised the services of other bitcoin exchangers. The defendants’ clients provided cash, credit card payments and wire transfers to the defendants to purchase bitcoins from a third-party online bitcoin broker on their client’s behalf, in exchange for commissions charged by the defendants. In the Spring of 2014, the third-party bitcoin broker warned the defendants that they were required to register with FinCEN because they were acting as virtual currency exchangers. Albeit the defendants allegedly misrepresented to the third-party online broker that they already had registered with FinCEN, the defendants did not actually register until November 2014. By that time, however, they already had exchanged more than $Two.Five million worth of virtual currency. This registration delay was the basis of the charges relating to the defendants’ virtual currency business.

The defendants were charged in an indictment with conspiring to operate an unlicensed money service business (“MSB”), in disturbance of eighteen U.S.C. § three hundred seventy one and eighteen U.S.C. § 1960, as well as thirteen other offenses associated with the operation of their bitcoin business. Further, the last count in the indictment charged the son (but not the father) with participating in a separate conspiracy to distribute the drug Xanax through a “darknet” website.

After having entered guilty prayers to the conspiracy counts, but prior to their sentencing hearing, both defendants moved to withdraw their prayers of guilty. As explained by the district court:

Count one of the indictment charged Defendants with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed MSB under eighteen U.S.C. § three hundred seventy one (conspiracy) and eighteen U.S.C. § one thousand nine hundred sixty (unlicensed money transmitting businesses). Under eighteen U.S.C. § 1960, a person commits an offense when he “knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or possesses all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business.” The statute defines the term “unlicensed money transmitting business” as “a money transmitting business which affects interstate or foreign commerce in any manner or degree” and either (A) is operated without an suitable money transmitting license in a State; or (B) fails to serve with the money transmitting business registration requirements under thirty one U.S.C. § five thousand three hundred thirty or regulations thereunder. Eighteen U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thus, the statute sets forward two separate methods by which the Government may prove that a defendant is an “unlicensed money transmitting business”: failure to obtain a state license where such a license is necessary, or failure to obey with separate federal registration requirements.

The government conceded that it could not prove the defendants guilty under the very first method, because the State of Louisiana did not require a license for persons to exchange or broker virtual currency. Nonetheless, the government argued that a sufficient factual basis had been introduced at the guilty prayer hearing to uphold the defendants’ guilty prayers under the 2nd method.

The court agreed. The court applied a multi-factor test under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(Two)(B) regarding whether a defendant may withdraw a prayer of guilty prior to the imposition of sentence. The very first and most significant factor in this test – the one upon which we concentrate here – is whether the defendant has asserted his actual innocence of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Analyzing this factor, the court concluded that the defendants had failed to demonstrate that they were actually harmless of the offense of conspiring to operate an unlicensed MSB.

The court very first explained that all businesses which meet the regulatory definition of a MSB must register with FinCEN through the registration procedures set forward in thirty one C.F.R. § 1022.380, which require a MSB in part to submit its registration form to FinCEN within one hundred eighty days of the date the business is established. The court further explained that the relevant regulations define a MSB as a business engaging in at least one of several different types of financial business. One of them is a “money transmitter,” which is defined under thirty one C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(Five)(A) as a person that engages in “the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substituted for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substituted for currency to another location or person by any means.” Under this analysis, the court concluded that the defendants’ business represented a “money transmitter” required to register:

. . . FinCEN released interpretive guidance in March two thousand thirteen clarifying the application of these regulations to businesses like that of Defendants. See Dept. of the Treasury, FinCEN, FIN-2013-G001 (March Eighteen, 2013). This guidance clarified that tho’ a user of a virtual currency like bitcoin is not an MSB, “an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.” See id. at one (emphasis in original). It is undisputed that Defendants failed to register with FinCEN until November 2014, well past the 180-day deadline for such registration, which commenced sometime in two thousand thirteen when Defendants very first began their bitcoin exchange business. . . . Thus, because “it is unlawful to do business [as an MSB] without serving with thirty one U.S.C. § five thousand three hundred thirty and [31 C.F.R. § 1022.380]” regardless of compliance with any state licensing requirements, the Court finds that Defendants have not asserted their actual innocence of the crime to which they pleaded guilty in Count one of the indictment. Thirty one C.F.R. § 1022.380(e).

After discussing the remaining six factors, the court concluded that the defendants ultimately had failed to present a “fair and just” reason which would permit them to withdraw their guilty prayers (including the guilty prayer to the conspiracy to distribute drugs entered by the 2nd defendant).

The decision to prosecute here presumably was motived in no puny part by the fact that one of the defendants also participated in alleged drug distribution. Nonetheless, the Lord case illustrates that eventually obtaining decent registration as an MSB will not necessarily insulate from prosecution a prior failure to serve with all licensing and registration requirements.

Related video:

Leave a Reply