US Launches Quiet Crackdown On Cryptocurrencies

Tyler Durden's picture

While all eyes were distracted with the Trump-demeaning headlines of the foreign sanctions bill, few spotted the hidden mandate that foreign governments monitor cryptocurrency circulations as a measure to combat "illicit finance trends" in an effort to "combat terrorism."

As Coinivore reports, the bill requires the governments to develop a “national security strategy” to combat the “financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit finance.”

Governments will be further required to monitor “data regarding trends in illicit finance, including evolving forms of value transfer such as so-called cryptocurrencies.”

According to the bill, an initial draft strategy is expected to come before Congress within the next year, and will see input from U.S. financial regulators, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department.

The bill calls for:

“[A] discussion of and data regarding trends in illicit finance, including evolving forms of value transfer such as so-called cryptocurrencies, other methods that are computer, telecommunications, or internet-based, cybercrime, or any other threats that the Secretary may choose to identify.”

Interestingly enough, Coindesk reports, “the new bill echoes another submitted in May as part of a wider Department of Homeland Security legislative package.” That measure, as CoinDesk reported at the time, calls for research into the potential use of cryptocurrencies by terrorists. 

Like the DHS bill, the new sanctions law doesn’t constitute a shift in policy, but rather indicates that Congress is taking steps to explore the issue more closely.

Just more examples of the U.S. government trying to impose its will upon other nations and citizens who never lived there, as witnessed with the arrest of Alexander Vinnik in Greece, BTC-E’s alleged CEO according to the Department Of Justice.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
order66's picture

The mother of all threats to fiat bullshittery.


Yes, who is monitoring the Federal Reserve Note for terrorist activity?

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

It's the old 'foot in the door' trick

Common_Law's picture

And they had at least 9 trillion unaccounted for several years ago.

AtATrESICI's picture

All that cash went for little children and blow...

The_Juggernaut's picture

Don't worry. You beaniecoins will always be safe. Nothing could go wrong.

Got The Wrong No's picture

If the money changers can't control it or profit from it you can;t have it.  

divingengineer's picture

I bought in last month and it's doubled.
If it goes down 50% am I really "losing" money?
Nah, not really.

Greenspazm's picture

So you cashed out your paper profit? The exchange wired the money to the bank account you gave them together with photo ID scan and all personal data?

zebra77a's picture

Thats not their worry its when it goes to bitcoin and stays in bitcoin and the end user sees it as a reliable mechanism of exchange and it does not come back to fiat.. Thats where there panicing.. And if the Chinese have already mastered pinnacle parallel offshore  transactions of buying and selling houses in Vancouver through an offshore exchange. Central B a nk and Government NIGHTMARE.. No Taxes for you so sry!! The Chinese have  done an end run around Canadian taxation while the house 'sale' occured on a chinese bitcoin exchange offshore..  they show up and do a taxless title transfer..

Greenspazm's picture

 "when it goes to bitcoin and stays in bitcoin" Yes of course, that is self-evident.

In your example, I can see the advantage of BTC with resepct to transferrance across borders here, but how does a Chinese person or corporation buy the $MM of bitcoin required for the real estate transaciotn using Yuan without being detected in the first place? There has to be a transfer of cash or currency from a bank account.

I am just curious how the braggarts here actually cash out on their astronomical speculative gains, i.e. convert BTC to fiat or purchase something of high value with the BTC. Until they do, it is just bragging about paper gains.

Justin Case's picture

"how the braggarts here actually cash out on their astronomical speculative gains"

I'm also wondering about that since there are records kept of cash transactions. Banks will also raise a red flag when a threshold for cash deposits is triggered.

OverTheHedge's picture

I assume that buying gold with bitcoin would be appropriate. The gold vendor then has an issue, as he has a reduction in stock, but no.income to offset it with, and when he restocks, he is either going to use dollars that will never be offset by income, or he is going to use bitcoin that will never be taxable....getting the books to balance is going to be entertaining. Of course, you can just treat bitcoin as another currency, declare the dollar value at a point for tax purposes, and pay your tax like a good boy, but the whole premise of the article is about avoiding government, and government avoiding the avoidance. It is similar to trading for cash: there are lots of ways of hiding transactions, and over the years government has found ways of detecting hidden transactions. Should be fun for all the family.


Eager Beaver's picture

Exactly it. Who says we provided any form of photo ID or personal information to the exchanges? They didn't ask me for a damn thing except a user name and a password. Besides, we're just trading "tulips", who really cares how many hundreds of thousands of these shit coins we accumulate? /sarc?

This is really a non-story, as many exchanges won't even do business with US residents anyway. And when they do, you can fund your account with Bitcoin, not fiat, then trade openely and freely. When you're done you drop your 'tulips' in your personal wallet, that resides physically on your computer. It never goes to a bank. You can spend the 'tulips' right from your wallet in so many places now, you don't even need fiat anymore. That's a trend that is going to continue to grow.

You guys still use banks and fiat? How very 20th century.

divingengineer's picture

If you pay your taxes I think you'll be fine. I'm not advocating tax evasion or any other illegal use for bitcoin. That would be the Chinese you are thinking of. Why would it raise eyebrows at IRS any more than a guy who takes profits on a couple hundred shares of FANG stock?

JRev's picture

When Communist Party cracked down on bank-based exchanges back in 2013, people started trading grocery store vouchers to miners and exchanges for cryptocurrencies. Similar non-bank exchanges like Purse.IO already exist in the West. Money always finds a way. LocalBitcoins. Mycelium LocalTrader. I had a Venezuelan dude contact me about selling him some GPUs for altcoin miners a few months back - the one exchange in Venezuela is under constant regulatory pressure and can't keep up with demand, so the "smart money" finds a workaround.

If such a worst-case scenario were ever to arise, it'd mean demand for cryptos is so threatening that it has to be addressed, at which point every small-time hobbyist miner will open their own "exchange" on places like CraigsList. Just like my Venezuelan contact was trying to do.

You have two choices here, mate: 1) Like a CB shill, keep coming up with increasingly fantastical reasons why bitcoin will be "stopped" despite the fact that none of these efforts have worked so far, or 2) Join the unstoppable monetary revolution. 

nomofiat's picture

Apparently, this is more a US problem then a bitcoin problem. In China, Japan, E.U, Korea,Philippines, etc, etc cashing out is never an issue.

truth_bombs's picture

you don't get it - or you do and are protecting your paper.  Vendors and suppliers of goods and services can start accepting crypto in lieu of your paper via person to person transfers without involving banks or paper at all.  Tell me how I can sell rocking chair to you for .xxx crypto and involve you sacred paper or banks?



AtATrESICI's picture

Everything is constantly going wrong in my thinking. So I don't trust in nothing and try to cover all angles even though experience has shown me time and again nothing ever comes out as I have planned(hoped it would).

Gods's picture

good one sick and twisted FTG

SoDamnMad's picture

You mean all those pallets of $100 bills sent to Iraq they can't account for?  Yeah, I saw a bunch of little kids with Franklins in their pocket and a Playstation under their arm going back to the village in Iraq. They were just waiting for KBR to run power to their home so the could play Call of Duty.

cheeseheader's picture

Well, 'fighting terrorism' seems maybe, sorta, more semi-believable than...


It's for the chidren crap.

Golden Phoenix's picture

If the terrorists are children then when Congress funds them it's for the children!


tmosley gets boot fucked for capital gains taxes in 5.....4......3..........2..............1.............

Golden Phoenix's picture

Maybe George Soros will take you out with him harvesting gold fillings from his fellow countrymen. You'd fit right in. 

Lumberjack's picture

Larry Summers joins bitcoin firm as a senior advisor

I wonder if they can put a harness on Larry and have him sniff out truffles too?


Larry Summers: Blockchain Can Succeed Without Bitcoin

AtATrESICI's picture

It seems like the gov. would not have too many issues tracking the financing of terrorism as they are the ones who are the primary funders of said terrorism??? WTF...

algol_dog's picture

I'll see you and raise you this scenario. A terrorist attack a a couple times more spectacular than 9/11, leading to the discovery that the funding was done through crypto currency. How easy would that be to set up ....

dark pools of soros's picture

and once they 'ban' crypto for the sheeple, they'll still use it to fund their terrorists.  Only approved criminals will be allowed to use it... so they aren't really criminals since they are just doing criminal things for the gov....  par for the course



AtATrESICI's picture

when the gov does is fully legal.

AtATrESICI's picture

Sadly with a recorded phone conversation between a FBI handler and a terrorist informant where a discussion of how the FBI provided explosives for the first world trade center bombing as heard in the video below and verified as an authentic court record by many sources.

I would say it is fucking too easy to fool the US population and we are totally fucked cryptos or not.

Golden Phoenix's picture

It's easy. The only Americans funding terrorism are in Congress.

swamp's picture

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch most recently.

Now we have hiway robbery (asset forfeiture) Sessions in charge

Raffie's picture

Yellen's group feels threatened by cryptos.

I like profits in crypotos and many ways to use them or just them them ride to higher numbers.

The Cooler King's picture



Are you paying them?

CJgipper's picture

Crypto is peronal property.  When I can deduct my automobile losses against it, we'll talk.

The Cooler King's picture

"Crypto is peronal property"


That 'splains it then... All fixed...


Is it LEGAL TENDER? (if it IS NOT, then why does Amazon accept it? & if that's the case, why does THE GOVERNMENT allow Amazon to accept a currency for payment that is not LEGAL TENDER)?


Just trying to do a little 'fact finding' from all you experts out there (whom I'm sure have considered EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE).


So far, we're at the point where 'Raffie' has not acknowledged to paying CAPITAL GAINS taxes, even though he brags about having sold bitcoins, at a profit, to buy precious metals.


&, of course, where some uninvited creep says that they're PERSONAL PROPERTY (which I'm sure he can tell the judge someday).


& whereby the NEXT CREEP is gonna say something about them being 'anonymous', which is a point that mosley himself did the best to say that NOBODY EVER SAID THAT on another thread.

Txpl9421's picture

Amazon accepts bitcoin. That would be news.

The Cooler King's picture

I dunno actually ~ MOSLEY said so (on the other thread)


Oh wait, it goes BEYOND THAT... mosley says that the 'exchanges' are so intertwined and concerned, that with regards to issuing wallets nowadays, that you practically have to upload a foto ID of yourself to get a wallet, or else it takes forever to issue one...


I guess that's all anyone needs to know about ANONYMITY & CAPITAL GAINS.

tmosley's picture

Stop lying about things I have said, shithead.

The Cooler King's picture



Then what was this comment all about?



tmosley The Cooler King Aug 13, 2017 1:44 PM

>So I guess it's impossible, then, for anyone running an algo, to stagger orders in any matter that they wanted

Why do you ignore the part of my reply where I addressed this specifically? If they don't slam it all at once it isn't as effective.

>& NONE of them, I'm sure, are interested in seeing the crypto coins fetch higher prices. Instead, they're ALL simply interested in fairness. & YES, absolutely, My 'faith meter' in SILICON VALLEY types is off the charts.

They are interested in more volume, which correlates with higher prices AND how fair their exchanges are. You asked if these exchanges were being run by "clown libertarians", but seem to have forgotten that you asked the question when answered. I suspect that is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

>Not long ago, bitcoin 'PROS' were touting the ANONYMOUS nature of transactions.

No they weren't. You are thinking of the anti-bitcoin idiots beating strawmen to death.

>Now we're worried about Federal Prison?

Only for those committing massive wire fraud (submitting fake names to financial institutions). But I'm sure you will ignore this part.

>Which means, I don't want to answer your question.

You didn't ask a question.

>Increase your purchasing power of what

Goods and services.

>If you're correct, why is Raffie DAY TRADING

Ask Raffie. We aren't the same person. 

>I'm being totally facetious here

I said shut up.

> but give me a list of anything I'm actually interested in that I can purchase with bitcoin.

Anything on directly. Anything on Amazon (at a discount!) via

>But then I'll just reply by telling you that I'm not interested in any of those things

This is because you are disingenuous, which is why I tend to tell you to fuck off.



Golden Phoenix's picture

Your avatar shows you fapping pretending anybody gives a shit.

tmosley's picture

The exchanges don't issue wallets, numbnuts.

Face it, you don't know anything, and are structurally incapable of knowing anything about crypto. Just shut the fuck up.

The central planners's picture

Some exchanges does like coinbase and even bitnex opens you wallets when you open an account on them. So.. hes not totally wrong.

Golden Phoenix's picture

Saying an exchange is required to possess bitcoin is like saying the only way to get dollars is to buy them at a bank. 

The Cooler King's picture

My only reference to 'exchanges' was based on a conversation I was having with mosley on another thread.


mosley was using the 'EXCHANGE' angle to try and negate a hypothetical scenario I presented with regards to a single entity, possibly controlling 10's of thousands, or even millions of wallets. I followed him on the 'EXCHANGE' aspect because it was his only offering towards saying that these scenarios were unlikely because of inherent CONTROLS that exchanges may use in monitoring the 15.8 million wallets with regards to 'fairness'.


Now you're telling me that exchanges are not required, which neans that mosleys points on exchanges, basically, don't mean anything...


For chrissakes people

tmosley's picture

Your mind is incapable of processing this information. It is just making shit up to fill in the blanks.

It's almost fascinating to watch.

The Cooler King's picture

Then why did you bother to go into all the detail (on the other thread), to explain to me how it would be practically impossible for some entity (let's say a Chinese cartel), to own 5 million bitcoin wallets and transact with them in a manner that could act as synthetic leverage on the price of bitcoin.


To refresh your memory (or should I just LINK it), your reply directed me to the world of 'exchanges' & whereby there were monitors on those xchanges (you nominated WINKLEVOSS as an example).


I made the point (which you acknowledged), that the exchanges themselves BENEFIT from higher bitcoin prices (so my natural next question is that these so called 'monitors' had EVERYTHING TO GAIN by not even bothering to partake in any fiduciary activity, much, in the same way CBOE 'monitors', the SEC, or anyone else has any interest in tattletaling on The Fed, or any exchange).


So now, we're on another thread, and you're not only denying things that you've said, but you're also joining with others who say that the idea that 'exchanges' have any real input on anything that happens isn't something that anyone really has control over.


The only thing that any 2 of your comments have that share anything is when you either tell someone to f*** off or call them a faggot, or, in the above case


"The exchanges don't issue wallets, numbnuts.

Face it, you don't know anything"


So, the exchanges don't offer wallets. Fine. Now I know something that I didn't before. But I believed to follow the logic on that because when I asked you about why some SINGLE entity couldn't own 5 million different wallets, you drove the conversation towards the exchanges, and said that exchanges would monitor that.


If yhou were truly interested in helping people to gain knowledge on this. I suggest that you behave more like 'BadLibertarian'

tmosley's picture

Your memory is so muddled I don't see any reason to interact with you. I'll come back tomorrow and you'll be claiming I said some more ignorant shit that I never said.

Just give up on the cryptos. You are too stupid to understand them.