//
Archives

New York

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Dwolla Account Seizure Reveals Mt Gox on Brink of US Indictment

[Reading Time: 8 minutes]

The US District of Maryland seizure warrant that stopped Dwolla in its tracks this week reveals in good detail that the Department of Homeland Security, the US federal agency charged with not only protecting the US borders but also deterring cybercrime, has been investigating Mt Gox for a while now, and has found a criminal violation to the US federal prohibition to operate an unlicensed money transmission business.

This warrant, which was published yesterday by multiple blogs, officially confirms that the FinCEN guidance of March 18, in which this federal government agency equates virtual currency exchanges and administrators to money transmitters, is already being enforced.  To my knowledge, no charges have been made at this point, but the fact that two bank accounts were seized (see below) seems to indicate that an indictment may be imminent.

What exactly is the “Dwolla Account” seizure warrant that stopped its operations this week?  Why was it issued?  What’s going on here!? Continue reading

Advertisements

It’s Official: Foreign Bitcoin Operators Servicing Texas Residents Must Obtain a Texas Money Transmitter License

[Reading Time: 3 minutes]

As of May 1, the state of Texas became the second US state to explicitly require foreign-located money transmitters (including Bitcoin exchangers and administrators) to obtain a state money transmitter license if their customers are residents of Texas.  The state of New York had taken a similar stance back in March of 2011.

In no ambiguous terms, the Texas Banking Department ruling, states that:

” […] it is the Department’s position that any money transmitter who allows Texas consumers to initiate transactions through its website is subject to the licensing requirements of the Money Services Act, regardless of where the transmitter is physically located.”

Equally clear had been the state of New York Banking Department in 2011 when ruling that:

” […] there is no doubt that businesses located out-of-state are subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they do business.  […] Likewise, it is clear that businesses located out-of-state that do business Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: