After they descended into coal mines, miners would take a caged canary with them. The poisonous gasses, notably carbon monoxide, that accumulate in these locations and pose a lethal danger to miners, would kill the canaries earlier than the miners. This data made them conscious of the hazard, enabling them to evacuate earlier than it was too late.
On Might 14, 2024, Alexey Pertsev, a software program developer who constructed an open-source instrument to protect on-line privateness, was discovered responsible of cash laundering and sentenced to greater than 5 years in jail by a Dutch court docket.
Within the court docket’s resolution, the next could be learn: “The instrument developed by the suspect and his co-authors combines most anonymity and optimum concealment methods with a severe lack of identification functionalities. Due to this fact, the instrument can’t be characterised as a professional instrument that has been inadvertently utilized by criminals. By its nature and operation, the instrument is particularly supposed for criminals.”
Looking for to protect one’s privateness is thus at worst proof of criminality, at finest complicity in a criminal offense. A threshold has been crossed.
Sadly, it’s seemingly that this case will generate little empathy and curiosity, because the particular person concerned labored within the crypto trade, and the instrument developed, Twister Money, was supposed to protect transaction confidentiality.
Nevertheless, it could be a grave mistake to contemplate this an remoted incident restricted to a fledgling trade for which the general public has little affection.
That is our canary within the coal mine.
It has stopped singing and is dying. If we don’t react, all of the miners will perish. Cryptos are an early and obtrusive revealer of an insidious phenomenon that has been eroding our liberal democracies for about thirty years and is reaching a degree of no return.
Regardless of the shortage of proof of their effectiveness, monetary surveillance measures proceed to be repeatedly strengthened, defying all democratic guidelines and necessities: the primacy of secrecy, freedom as a norm, the precept of proportionality of rights limitations, technological neutrality, presumption of innocence… Preemptive management previous to any offense turns into the norm, the enforcement of legislation turns into selective and arbitrary, checking account closures tackle the looks of censorship and monetary suffocation, and property rights are diminished to a mere shadow.
The battle towards cash laundering and terrorist financing has degenerated into collective hysteria worthy of authoritarian and even totalitarian regimes, to the purpose of criminalizing a basic and constitutional proper: privateness. The well-known American pc engineer Phil Zimmermann warned us in 1991: “if privateness is outlawed, solely outlaws could have privateness.”
Removed from being a “crypto” challenge, this shift away from liberal democracy issues everybody. There are quite a few examples in regimes identified for his or her democracy, spanning from India to the UK, and from Canada to France.
Observe: If the crypto half doesn’t curiosity you, you’ll be able to proceed on to half II.
I. Classes from the Canary
1. America Includes Itself
Lower than a 12 months in the past, the arrest of the Twister Money builders had already legitimately precipitated fairly a stir. However the scope of the case, restricted to the crypto world, perceived as a den of terrorists and cash launderers, had shortly confined the indignation to a small group of insiders.
In April 2024, American and European public authorities, emboldened by this success, continued to maneuver ahead in a worrying course.1
A number of occasions occurred nearly concurrently. The arrest of the builders of the Bitcoin pockets builders of Samourai Pockets, by the FBI in cooperation with the IRS (the American tax authority), with the responsible cooperation of European authorities, kicked issues off. Their crime could be to have “conspired to launder cash” and to have “operated an unlicensed cash switch enterprise”.2 They face 20 years’ imprisonment for the primary cost and 5 years for the second. By comparability, the utmost irreducible life sentence in France is 30 years.
Following this was an FBI notice3 urging all People to not use “cash transmitting companies” that don’t acquire their id and are usually not registered. And the Federal Bureau continued by threatening to freeze all funds that had been combined with funds obtained by means of unlawful means.
To raised perceive the absurdity of such an announcement by the FBI, allow us to transpose the reasoning into the bodily world, and spotlight two main points.
The primary issues the accusation of working an unlicensed cash switch enterprise.
Samourai Pockets is an organization that gives Bitcoin wallets with enhanced transaction privateness. It doesn’t function transactions on behalf of its purchasers; it offers the pockets software program. Within the bodily world, their equal could be a leather-based craftsman who crafts leather-based wallets enabling their customers to retailer money. He facilitates money administration however has no say in how the pockets house owners spend their money.
Right here, the U.S. federal companies conflate and lump collectively a big financial institution that operates transactions on behalf of its purchasers and a leather-based craftsman, holding the latter answerable for how his purchasers use their money.
How far can we go along with this line of reasoning? To ATMs? To the individuals on the Central Financial institution who print these payments? To the lumberjacks who produce the wooden used for the paper of the payments?
Equally, ought to we maintain a carpenter answerable for what his purchasers resolve to place within the furnishings they make? Or an architect if the home they construct finally ends up getting used for drug trafficking?
It shortly turns into obvious that this conflation is totally absurd. A pockets creator just isn’t answerable for what the pockets proprietor decides to do with the cash saved in it. Being a part of the money or money storage worth chain ought to by no means suggest duty for its remaining use, as there isn’t a restrict to this reasoning.
This query was really raised 20 years in the past concerning peer-to-peer exchanges, which permit a number of individuals to alternate data immediately in a decentralized method. This communication protocol and the software program that allow it are generally used to commit offenses, significantly towards mental property rights. Nevertheless, regardless of makes an attempt to criminalize the instrument itself4, European5 and American6 courts have dominated in favor of technological neutrality, stating that the software program in query permits each authorized and unlawful exchanges and that their suppliers are usually not answerable for the use made by third events. The case legislation then centered on the duty of every particular person concerned in a probably criminality, acquitting some people on account of lack of proof of their legal intent7. These judicial options are clearly consistent with the conventional train of basic rights.
The second challenge lies in the specter of fund blocking.
Freezing any cash combined with funds obtained by means of unlawful means could be equal to arresting anybody whose payments, whether or not of their leather-based pockets or pocket, have handed by means of the mistaken arms.
In 2009, a college research coated by CNN confirmed that 90% of American greenback payments carry traces of cocaine, and as much as 100% in some main cities8. This helps us higher perceive the absurdity of the FBI’s menace: nearly all of the money on the planet has already handed by means of the mistaken arms. Ought to all money holders be imprisoned? After all not.
Following these absurd coercive actions, on 26 April 2024, america Lawyer for the Southern District of New York revealed the federal government’s rationale towards Roman Storm9, the lead developer of the privateness software program Twister Money. The creator insists, contemplating Twister Money as a “cash transmitting enterprise.”
In line with this argument, “the definition of “cash transmitting” in Part 1960 doesn’t require the cash transmitter to have ‘management’ of the funds being transferred. […] As an illustration, a USB cable transfers knowledge from one system to a different […].”
A really broad definition of a “cash transmitting enterprise” that may even embrace USB cables, in response to their very own admission. At this price, the query will quickly turn out to be “who just isn’t a cash transmitter?”
Right here, the DOJ (Division of Justice) is so formidable that it goes towards the rules supplied by FinCen (Monetary Crime Enforcement Community, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Division). In different phrases, the U.S. authorities doesn’t agree with itself, which signifies a sure uneasiness.
In 2013, FinCen defined that software program builders weren’t “cash transmitters” (“The manufacturing and distribution of software program, in and of itself, doesn’t represent acceptance and transmission of worth, even when the aim of the software program is to facilitate the sale of digital foreign money.”10).
In 2019, following an inquiry concerning sure programmable options on Bitcoin (Time-locked and multi-signature), FinCen reiterated that the partial management that might be exercised by pockets builders was not adequate to qualify them as “cash transmitters” (“the particular person collaborating within the transaction to supply further validation on the request of the proprietor doesn’t have completely unbiased management over the worth.”11).
2. Europe on the Forefront of an Intolerant Shift
Past the opportunistic {qualifications} of assorted events and to return extra merely to the way in which the legislation needs to be utilized in a liberal democracy, let’s recall that cryptocurrency transfers are transfers of digital communications in response to the definition supplied by European Union law12.
Furthermore, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum permit for the alternate of communications that may be certified as correspondences (the chances of alternate are usually not restricted to financial models). Digital communications are protected by the precise to privateness and private knowledge safety, and a limitation similar to lifting confidentiality or blocking can solely be justified whether it is crucial for the efficient pursuit of an outlined goal, in a strictly proportionate method, significantly within the case of a confirmed offense and personally dedicated by the person whose communication is restricted.
The Court docket of Justice of the European Union has additionally dominated on this sense, contemplating that the systematic evaluation of communications, even when potential, infringes on the elemental proper to the safety of customers’ private knowledge, in violation of the Constitution of Elementary Rights of the European Union. The Court docket specifies that an injunction to dam communications that doesn’t distinguish “between unlawful and authorized content material […] may end result within the blocking of communications with authorized content material” and thus infringe on the liberty of expression and communication13. Concerning cryptocurrency transfers, we will additionally invoke an infringement on the precise to property.
It’s due to this fact inconceivable, in a liberal democracy, to ask a personal actor to dam transactions or different varieties of communications with out being sure of their illegality.
We will notice one other handy schizophrenia on the a part of the American authorities, which Lyn Alden aptly summarizes by referring to “Schrödinger’s Foreign money”14: Bitcoin is taken into account as a foreign money solely when it permits for the prosecution of people. The remainder of the time, it’s a speculative instrument to which this qualification is denied. Certainly, to use the definition of “cash transmitter,” it’s crucial to contemplate that what’s being transmitted (bitcoins) is certainly cash. To the purpose that the federal government argues that “Bitcoin clearly qualifies as cash” in an effort to prosecute Roman Storm.
Europe repeatedly engages on this distortion as effectively, as I had already proven within the justification invoked to incorporate “crypto-assets” within the TFR regulation. Cryptos have certainly appeared in a textual content that beforehand focused completely “banknotes and cash, scriptural cash, and digital cash.” However to say that Bitcoin is a foreign money…
Furthermore, in Europe, coincidentally, a brand new regulation was voted on April 25 imposing new monetary constraints, nonetheless with the laudable goal of combating cash laundering15.
Among the many constraints, we will significantly notice a €10,000 money fee restrict throughout Europe, but in addition the requirement for digital asset service suppliers (DASPs) to gather much more details about their purchasers, together with for transactions beneath €1,000, and for private wallets, referred to as “self-custodial,” “self-hosted,” or “un-hosted,” i.e., not managed by a monetary middleman on behalf of third events. The leather-based wallets of the digital world.
A small digression into Newspeak right here: by imposing the terminology “self-hosted” or “un-hosted,” regulators and legislators are attempting to implement the view that third-party custody is the norm, and self-custody is the exception. That is clearly a harmful and insidious view, suggesting that wanting to maintain one’s personal cash is suspicious, regardless that it’s a part of the conventional train of freedoms. There aren’t any “un-hosted” or “self-hosted” wallets. There are simply wallets, interval. And there are third events who maintain wallets on behalf of others.
Returning to the textual content, let’s casually notice that it’s significantly exact and imposes know-your-customer (KYC) necessities for transactions beneath €1,000 solely on DASPs, exempting banks and different monetary establishments, which deal with far bigger volumes than DASPs. The proportionality of this quantity and this discrimination just isn’t justified.
As well as, there’s a ban on supporting enhanced privateness cryptocurrencies. Allow us to recall right here that historic commodity monies (gold, silver, copper, bones, and many others.) are nameless, as continues to be money immediately. The ban is due to this fact inequitable and strikes beneath the pretext of its digital nature. It’s once more unjustified, though it unacceptably hinders the conventional train of a freedom since we’re speaking about its outright extinction (such a disproportion just isn’t admitted by the European Court docket of Human Rights16).
As beforehand talked about, all these actions are extraordinarily problematic in a number of respects.
First, as a result of these constraints are based mostly on no rational reasoning or related justification and are merely the results of paranoia associated to cryptos, coupled with a KYC mannequin (Know Your Buyer, the shopper identification processes imposed on monetary establishments) that has been elevated to a faith regardless of the shortage of convincing outcomes over a number of many years. Second, as a result of they disregard the necessities for the safety of basic freedoms on which the European Union was constructed and to which it’s topic. Third, as a result of they’re counterproductive, which means they create new threats, the results of that are more and more extreme.
3. An Unfounded Paranoia
Practically all texts coping with the “crucial” regulation of “crypto-assets” have deserted scientific and authorized rigor to the purpose of by no means proving the preliminary assertion from which their reasoning begins: “cryptos are means to facilitate cash laundering.”
To understand this, one solely wants to research all of the texts on the topic issued lately. That is an train I’ve already completed for the TFR text17. Certainly, within the “proportionality” paragraph of the proposed modification to the regulation, there’s a small phrase indicating that, in response to the opinion of EU surveillance authorities, “particular” risk-increasing components have been recognized regarding cryptos.
Why is proportionality a particularly vital precept in a state ruled by the rule of legislation?
As a result of the adequacy of a legislative normal or instrument to the pursued goal, i.e., the steadiness between the infringement on a proper and the final curiosity, is totally essential to keep away from authoritarian and liberty-infringing drifts. One can not conceal behind an goal, nonetheless commendable, to impose disproportionate restrictions on rights.
For instance, one would possibly assume that by putting in a policeman in everybody’s house, crime could be diminished. The target could also be thought-about laudable, however the person rights that may be compromised within the course of characterize an unacceptable discount in freedoms. Thus, society decides to tolerate probably larger crime charges (topic to the dangers to freedoms generated by surveillance itself) in an effort to protect the rule of legislation and basic freedoms, with out which democracy can not exist.
Conversely, the prohibition of alcohol whereas driving is a restriction that may be thought-about proportionate: alcohol consumption just isn’t prohibited, however it’s prohibited in conditions the place its consumption is systematically harmful for oneself and others. The impacts of such laws could be monitored by observing the variety of accidents, for instance. A proper has been restricted, actually, however the common curiosity prevails for the reason that effectiveness of the measure in relation to an vital goal (the preservation of life) could be demonstrated, and the infringement on rights is minimized by limiting the restrictions as a lot as potential.
In a liberal democracy, freedom is the norm and constraints the exception. It’s as much as the state, when it needs to limit a freedom, to display that it doesn’t go additional than crucial to attain its goal and that this goal is successfully achieved18. Moreover, the state is obliged to undertake norms to make sure that all individuals and establishments, each private and non-private, respect this rule19.
Within the case at hand (cash laundering and terrorist financing), and regardless of the assertion that “supervisory authorities have recognized particular danger components,” when one performs the detective wishing to hint again to the supply, one realizes that the opinion in query, courting from 2019, itself admits that the so-called “competent authorities” do not need the “data and understanding of those merchandise and property, which prevents them from finishing up a correct affect evaluation.”20
It additionally deflects by referring to a different opinion (sic) from the European Banking Authority, which dates again to… 2014. On this “unique” opinion, we discover a fairly laconic evaluation: “the phenomenon of Digital Currencies being assessed has not existed for a adequate period of time for there to be quantitative proof accessible of the present dangers, neither is this of the standard required for a sturdy rating.”21
In different phrases, the TFR regulation, imposing monitoring of all crypto transfers from one supplier to a different, was constructed on the premise of two reviews. One report said that there was no proof to qualify or quantify the dangers, whereas the opposite admitted that competent authorities lacked the data and understanding to conduct an evaluation.
Due to this fact, concluding the paragraph on the “proportionality” of the TFR regulation by stating that “In accordance with the precept of Proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), this regulation doesn’t exceed what is critical to attain its aims” is questionable at finest. Because the dangers are usually not assessed, it appears troublesome to characterize the restriction of rights as “proportionate.”
In his battle towards FINMA, Alexis Roussel made the identical commentary for Switzerland. The Swiss Nationwide Threat Evaluation (NRA) of 201822 concerning cash laundering dangers in crypto signifies, from its very first sentence, that no instances of terrorism financing associated to crypto have been recognized, and solely uncommon instances of cash laundering. Nevertheless, the next assertion recommends classifying these property as “high-risk” by their very nature. Particularly, because of this a crypto transaction, even of €10, carries the identical degree of danger as a €100,000 switch to an account in Russia. This equivalence is established with out democratic processes in Switzerland and with none proof.
The 2024 NRA23 doesn’t appear to have made a lot progress and nonetheless admits to missing knowledge to evaluate dangers.
We will clearly see a sample emerge: anti-money laundering laws and more and more stringent knowledge assortment necessities are imposed with out professional foundation or factual knowledge to justify their implementation.
A extra complete overview has been supplied by L0la L33tz in Bitcoin Magazine24, permitting us to complement this stock of breaches of probably the most fundamental rigor in Europe, in addition to by sister establishments of Bretton-Woods, the IMF, and the World Financial institution, that are true compasses for world decision-makers.
For instance, in 2023, the annual report for 2021 from the European Union’s FSRB (the European department of the Monetary Motion Process Power, FATF)25, an intergovernmental group established in 1989 to fight cash laundering and terrorism financing, was launched.
The report begins with the next quote: “It’s well-known that cash launderers have abused cryptocurrencies, initially to switch and conceal earnings generated from drug trafficking. These days, their strategies have gotten more and more subtle and on a bigger scale.”
Sadly, beginning an argument with “it’s well-known” reads the identical as an essay that begins with “All through historical past, mankind”: it doesn’t exude the rigor of thorough analysis.
The report itself admits {that a} research shall be devoted in 2022 to analyzing cash laundering tendencies in cryptocurrencies, suggesting that it didn’t exist on the time of writing the report, asserting as an apparent reality what had by no means been studied.
This report devoted to the research of cash laundering tendencies in cryptocurrencies has certainly been published26, but it surely focuses not on the phenomenon itself however fairly on the evaluation of the implementation of laws. Laws that, it’s value noting, are based mostly on unproven cash laundering.
Concerning the research of info and the sector, the report apparently notes that the danger evaluation “lacks depth.” It additionally observes that almost all of regulators lack the instruments and experience essential to successfully analyze and examine instances of cash laundering and terrorism financing associated to “digital property.”
The research additionally takes the identical shortcut because the aforementioned Swiss evaluation: discovering only a few instances of cash laundering involving digital property, it prefers to conclude that it’s as a result of extra regulation is required, fairly than contemplating that cash laundering just isn’t overrepresented in these property.
As for the IMF, it is no higher: the most recent report on public insurance policies associated to crypto-assets (September 2023)27 factors out the shortage of information on cash laundering and terrorism financing dangers, stating that “such impacts haven’t been particularly studied in relation to crypto-assets.”
The IMF’s World Monetary Stability Report for 202428 depends on Chainalysis figures and proposes the determine of $1.1 billion acquired in cryptocurrencies for ransomware globally, which is lower than 0.07% of the crypto market capitalization.
The IMF’s twin establishment, the World Financial institution, doesn’t considerably differ from the aforementioned views. In a 2023 report the establishment signifies that the difficulty of “Digital Belongings” was not addressed within the Threat Evaluation and calls on public authorities and firms to supply extra knowledge concerning these property.
In its cash laundering-related publications for 202030 and 202231 the World Financial institution merely makes no point out of cryptocurrencies. In its articles32 33 on crypto adoption, the World Financial institution merely sidesteps the difficulty by redirecting to FATF papers.
We’ve got come full circle: reviews cite one another, asking for extra readability on the figures, however no one ever conducts the research itself. We depend on FATF, an unelected physique, not topic to the foundations of a decent democracy, particularly concerning proportionality, as I discussed earlier.
The target is not to permit a proportionate battle towards cash laundering however to lift the requirements of controls yearly, forgetting the explanation why these controls had been applied within the first place.
Furthermore, monetary establishments use the time period “compliance” to emphasise the truth that they adjust to the anticipated management requirements. The aims of effectivity and proportionality are not at stake. There isn’t a doubt that if FATF advisable placing a policeman behind each pc, legislators would rush to transpose this “finest apply” into legislation…
It isn’t even hidden. Within the regulation voted on April 24 by the European Union34, the justification for imposing new requirements on crypto corporations is totally not centered on combating cash laundering and its effectiveness. Certainly, since MiCA has not even entered into drive but, and the variation of the TFR textual content to cryptos may be very current, how may we conduct a posteriori evaluation of the effectiveness of measures that haven’t but had an impact and probably decide that they should be strengthened?
The reasoning behind the strengthening of controls is in actual fact a lot easier: “On account of speedy technological developments and the development in FATF requirements, it’s essential to overview that strategy.”
It’s not the evolution of the menace, its evaluation, the means utilized by criminals, or the outcomes of a research, and many others., however fairly the development in FATF requirements that leads Europe to align itself.
And the following steps are already laid out: “On the identical time, advances in innovation, similar to the event of the metaverse, present new avenues for the perpetration of crimes and for the laundering of their proceeds.”
Whereas the most well-liked metaverses are nonetheless within the experimental stage and barely see a number of hundred individuals connecting concurrently, and because the hype subsides, they’re already being talked about as nothing lower than “avenues” for cash laundering.
If you happen to’re on the lookout for numbers and analyses, look elsewhere. The imposition of further surveillance requirements depends extra on beliefs and perceptions than on info as a result of nobody dares to oppose as a policymaker, risking being equated with a supporter of terrorism or cash laundering. It is due to this fact a real faith, one which turns into nearly not possible to query at its core.
The digital transition has been significantly helpful for states: with the should be banked to make the most of monetary globalization, resulting in the omnipresence of banks, the variety of potential targets to observe has drastically diminished, till it ended up regarding solely a handful of banks. The transition from a world through which everybody held their money at house to 1 the place, at the very least within the OECD, banking is the norm, entails an inevitable monetary intermediation.
On this regard, Bitcoin was an enormous wake-up name as a result of it signifies that the whole monetary regulation of the previous 30 years is out of date, as it’s based mostly on an assumption that’s not legitimate, particularly the necessity for a monetary middleman to conduct transactions within the digital world.
In tomorrow’s world the place corporations will make wallet-to-wallet funds, who will carry out KYC? Will we solely understand the absurdity of the mannequin when half the planet is working to observe the opposite half?
Bitcoin shakes the very foundations of anti-money laundering efforts. And fairly than questioning the regulation and its relevance, each when it comes to effectiveness and when it comes to respect for basic freedoms, we want the trail of blindness, which results in proscribing the usage of a technologically impartial instrument by arbitrarily impeding innovation, the precise to property, and the safety of alternate confidentiality, the significance of which for democracy, notably by means of encryption of exchanges, has not too long ago been reaffirmed by the European Court docket of Human Rights35.
Bitcoin is a canary within the mine. A sign that one thing is slipping away from us, not regarding cryptocurrencies, however in regards to the basic freedoms of all residents, threatened by monetary surveillance.
[1] https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/particulars?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069
[2] Phil Zimmermann, Why I Wrote PGP, https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html
[3] François Sureau additionally alerted us on this regard: “This provides nothing to the battle towards terrorism. Quite the opposite, it offers him a victory with no battle, by exhibiting how fragile our rules had been. François Sureau, Pour la liberté — Répondre au terrorisme sans perdre la raison, Tallandier, Essais, 2017, p.11.
[4] This tends to show Satoshi Nakamoto proper, who wrote on bitcointalk on December 11, 2010, “WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s nest, and the swarm is headed in direction of us.”. He discusses the sudden consideration Bitcoin is receiving following Wikileaks’ announcement that they might settle for bitcoin donations. For Satoshi, this consideration turned a hazard, and this message shall be one in every of his final earlier than disappearing and preserving his anonymity.
[5] US Lawyer’s Workplace Southern District of New York, Founders And CEO Of Cryptocurrency Mixing Service Arrested And Charged With Cash Laundering And Unlicensed Cash Transmitting Offenses, 2024 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/founders-and-ceo-cryptocurrency-mixing-service-arrested-and-charged-money-laundering
[6] FBI, Alert on Cryptocurrency Cash Companies Companies, 2024, https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2024/PSA240425
[7] Voir par ex. Florent Latrive, Téléchargement : les logiciels P2P menacés d’interdiction, 3 mai 2006, https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2006/05/03/telechargement-les-logiciels-p2p-menaces-d-interdiction_37994/ ; Estelle Dumout, Vers une interdiction des logiciels peer-to-peer n’intégrant pas de DRM ?, 1 novembre 2005, https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/vers-une-interdiction-des-logiciels-peer-to-peer-n-integrant-pas-de-drm-39286440.htm.
[8] Voir par ex. The Kazaa Ruling: What It Means, 2 avril 2002, https://www.wired.com/2002/04/the-kazaa-ruling-what-it-means/ ; Christophe Guillemin, La Cour de cassation néerlandaise confirme la légalité de Kazaa, 22 déc. 2003, https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/la-cour-de-cassation-neerlandaise-confirme-la-legalite-de-kazaa-39134304.htm.
[9] Gérard Glaise, La responsabilité des distributeurs de logiciels de peer-to-peer : l’exemple du canari dans la mine?, 14 oct. 2004, https://www.droit-technologie.org/actualites/la-responsabilite-des-distributeurs-de-logiciels-de-peer-to-peer-lexemple-du-canari-dans-la-mine/.
[10] Lionel Thoumyre, Peer-to-peer : un « audiopathe » partageur relaxé pour bonne foi, 17 juillet 2006, https://www.juriscom.web/wp-content/paperwork/da20060717.pdf.
[11] Madison Park, 90 p.c of U.S. payments carry traces of cocaine, https://version.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/cocaine.traces.cash/
[12] Damian Williams, The Authorities’s Opposition To Defendant Roman Storm’s Pretrial Motions, 2024, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938.53.0.pdf
[13] FinCen, Utility of FinCEN’s Laws to Digital Foreign money Software program Growth and Sure Funding Exercise, 2014, https://www.fincen.gov/sources/statutes-regulations/administrative-rulings/application-fincens-regulations-virtual
[14] FinCen, Utility of FinCEN’s Laws to Sure Enterprise Fashions Involving Convertible Digital Currencies, 2019, https://www.fincen.gov/websites/default/information/2019-05/FinCENpercent20Guidancepercent20CVCpercent20FINALpercent20508.pdf
[15] Directive 2018/1972 établissant le Code des communications électroniques européen, artwork. 2.
[16] Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne, Communiqué de presse n° 126/11, 24 nov. 2011, à propos de l’affaire Scarlet Prolonged SA, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/add/docs/software/pdf/2011-11/cp110126fr.pdf.
[17] https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/standing/1784304037430456383
[18] Anti-Cash Laundering Regulation EU, 2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc/TA-9-2024-0365_EN.pdf
[19] Jeremy McBride, , « Proportionality and the European Conference on Human Rights », in The precept of Proportionality within the Legal guidelines of Europe, éd. Evelyn Ellis, Hart Publishing, 1999, p. 25 ; Cour EDH. Hertel c. Suisse, 25 août1998, §50, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-62778.
[20] https://twitter.com/StachAlex/standing/1776914160355303883
[21] Groupe de travail « Article 29 », avis 01/2014, n°3.26 (et jurisprudence citée).
[22] Cour EDH, X. et Y v. Pays Bas, 26 mars 1985, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-62162.
[23] Joint Opinion of the European Supervisory Authorities on the dangers of cash laundering and terrorist financing affecting the European Union’s monetary sector, 2019, https://register.eiopa.europa.eu/Publications/Jointpercent20Opinionpercent20onpercent20thepercent20riskspercent20onpercent20MLpercent20andpercent20TFpercent20affectingpercent20thepercent20EUspercent20financialpercent20sector.pdf
[24] EBA Opinion on ‘digital currencies’, 2014, https://extranet.eba.europa.eu/websites/default/paperwork/information/paperwork/10180/657547/81409b94-4222-45d7-ba3b-7deb5863ab57/EBA-Op-2014-08percent20Opinionpercent20onpercent20Virtualpercent20Currencies.pdf?retry=1
[25] Federal Division of Justice and Police of Switzerland, Nationwide Threat Evaluation (NRA):Threat of cash laundering and terrorist financing posed by crypto property and crowdfunding, 2018, https://www.sif.admin.ch/dam/sif/en/dokumente/IntegritpercentC3percentA4tpercent20despercent20Finanzplatzes/nra-bericht-krypto-assets-und-crowdfunding.pdf.obtain.pdf/BC-BEKGGT-d.pdf
[26] Federal Division of Justice and Police of Switzerland, Nationwide Threat Evaluation (NRA) Threat of cash laundering and the financing of terrorism by means of crypto property, 2024, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/86329.pdf
[27] Lola Leetz, EU Parliament Adopts AML Legal guidelines Regulating Bitcoin Based mostly on Questionable Assumptions, 2024 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authorized/eu-parliament-adopts-aml-laws-regulating-bitcoin-based-on-questionable-assumptions
[28] Council of Europe, Annual Report 2021 MoneyVal, https://rm.coe.int/0900001680aad1fc
[29] Council of Europe, Cash Laundering And Terrorist Financing Dangers In The World of Digital Belongings, 2023, https://rm.coe.int/0900001680abdec4
[30] Monetary Stability Board, MF-FSB Synthesis Paper: Insurance policies for Crypto-Belongings, 2023 https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R070923-1.pdf
[31] FMI, World Monetary Stability Report, The Final Mile : Monetary Vulnerabilities and Dangers, 2024, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Points/2024/04/16/global-financial-stability-report-april-2024
[32] World Financial institution Group, Classes Discovered from the First Era of Cash Laundering and Terrorist Financing Threat Assessments, 2023, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2e1f3f32-57ad-43cb-bb8e-d1aab5636be4/content material
[33] World Financial institution Group, Matthew Collin, Illicit Monetary Flows: Ideas, Measurement, and Proof, 2019, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d2f7fa07-a285-5c5b-880e-25002a4951fb/content material
[34] World Financial institution Group, Nationwide Assessments of Cash Laundering Dangers: Studying from Eight Superior International locations’ NRAs, 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b860c956-659e-5005-93c9-4f06993c37ab/content material
[35] World Financial institution Group, Crypto-Belongings Exercise across the World Evolution and Macro-Monetary Drivers, 2022, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/738261646750320554/pdf/Crypto-Belongings-Exercise-around-the-World-Evolution-and-Macro-Monetary-Drivers.pdf
