Not exact matches
Last year, it said
Bitcoin businesses, which included exchanges that turn national currencies into
Bitcoin, should be classified as
money transmitters.
In August, a slew of
bitcoin companies cut off service to New York rather than apply for a BitLicense, the regulatory hall - pass created by the NYDFS to cover digital - currency business deemed «
money transmitters.»
I learned that it was a Casascius coin, one of roughly 3,500 minted by a
Bitcoin user of the same name before the US Treasury Department shut him down in 2013 for failing to have a federal
money transmitter license.
In a potentially significant ruling from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN),
Bitcoin platforms are being reclassified as
money transmitters.
I am the one who got the ruling from FinCEN that US
Bitcoin miners didn't have to register as
money transmitters.
They make a distinction between centralized virtual currencies and decentralized ones (here targeting
Bitcoin), «a person is a
money transmitter under the regulations if he or she creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells them to a third party for real currency or its equivalent.
Most of the analysis looks at Convertible Virtual Currency (most significantly
Bitcoin) and «Administrators and exchangers of convertible virtual currency as
money transmitters.»
Depending on how
bitcoin sales are regulated in your country, you may or may not fall under «
money transmitter» regulations.
from those states that either do not require additional
Money Transmitter License from
Bitcoin companies, or those who are only in process of developing
Bitcoin regulation policies.
These regulations have definitely stalled development of different kinds of
Bitcoin companies, especially in the United States where businesses are required to gain a
money transmitter license in every state where they wish to do business.
However, it held that American entities who generate «virtual currency» such as
bitcoins are
money transmitters or MSBs if they sell their generated currency for national currency:»... a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a
money transmitter.»
Additionally, FinCEN claimed regulation over American entities that manage
bitcoins in a payment processor setting or as an exchanger: «In addition, a person is an exchanger and a
money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.»
This specifically extends to «miners» of the
bitcoin currency who may have to register as MSBs and abide by the legal requirements of being a
money transmitter if they sell their generated
bitcoins for national currency and are within the United States.
As some states have marked that
bitcoin ATM businesses are exempt from
money transmitter license, I don't know it is the case with NC.
This could be problematic for businesses, such as
bitcoin exchanges, that have spent the last few years building compliance programs under the framework of
money services businesses registered with FinCEN and
money transmitters licensed by the states.
By then, awareness of
money transmitter laws was growing within the
Bitcoin community and a new attitude of caution was taking hold.
ACT / bill /
Bitcoin / BTC / Clearing Banks / coinbase / Exchanges / Hawaii / Hawaiian lawmakers / Law / medium of exchange / monetary instruments /
money transmission / Money Transmitter Act / N - Featured / Regulation / Regulations / reserves / SB3082 / Virtual Curre
money transmission /
Money Transmitter Act / N - Featured / Regulation / Regulations / reserves / SB3082 / Virtual Curre
Money Transmitter Act / N - Featured / Regulation / Regulations / reserves / SB3082 / Virtual Currencies
In mid-2017, Washington passed a bill that applied
money transmitter laws to
bitcoin exchanges.
New Hampshire requires
bitcoin sellers to get a
money transmitter license and post a $ 100,000 bond.
US lawmakers continue to wrestle with how to approach cryptocurrencies, as a federal judge says the likes of
bitcoin can be treated as commodities by the CFTC, FinCEN says
money transmitter rules apply to ICOs, and Wyoming's state legislature clears a bill exempting some crypto assets from securities laws.
Although the requirement for exchanges to get a
money transmitter license is highly problematic, for the most part this guidance paper is a positive sign for
Bitcoin for one simple reason:
Bitcoin itself is now unambiguously legal, and that will not change any time soon.
That is to say, interpreting these words literally, miners have to register as
money transmitters if they are selling their
bitcoins.
Rather, they added «convertible virtual currency» to existing «
money transmitter» statutes, including
bitcoin exchange as a form of currency trading.
Observers believe the new guidance means FinCEN has increased the regulatory barriers for
bitcoin firms, suggesting that merchant processors are considered
money transmitters.
In a response to twin letters submitted in late 2013, the chief US
money laundering and terrorist financing regulator explained that
bitcoin exchanges may be
money transmitters, even if they only match buyers and sellers on their platform.
CipherTrace helps cryptocurrency
money transmitters to safely engage in
bitcoin transactions and comply with anti-
money laundering (AML) regulations more
HB 19, which passed the House on Monday and is now awaiting introduction in the Senate, exempts cryptocurrency from the state's
money transmitter act, a bill that predated the creation of
Bitcoin and made it impractical for cryptocurrency exchanges to operate in the state.
Bitcoin exchanges could also be considered
money transmitters and be required to follow additional regulations under state law.
The post Hawaii's New
Money Transmitters Act Will Require Virtual Currency Licenses appeared first on
Bitcoin News.
That means
bitcoin exchanges like Tradehill would have to register as a
money transmitter with the federal government.
Currently, both
bitcoin companies and more traditional
money transmitters need to comply with a complicated network of regulatory regimes in all 50 U.S. states, a pain point that industry advocates have argued severely limits startup growth by increasing the cost of market entrance.