InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senate Committees Begin Review Of Virtual Currency Regulation
This week, two Senate Committees—Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs—held hearings to hear from regulators and other stakeholders about how virtual currencies fit within the existing regulatory framework, and to assess whether there is a need to alter that framework in response to potential risks presented by emerging virtual currency technologies. The hearings followed an inquiry initiated by Senate Homeland Security leaders over the summer. Senators who participated in the hearings did not indicate any desire to move quickly to establish new federal regulations to address potential risks presented by innovation in virtual currencies. Rather, the lawmakers generally expressed a desire not to inhibit continued innovation, while supporting market participants who want to play by the rules and protecting the market from those who do not. In both hearings, FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery described her agency’s ability to address the BSA/AML and terrorism financing risks presented by virtual currencies by employing FinCEN’s existing statutory authority and regulatory tools. Similarly, during the Senate Banking hearing, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors expressed confidence in the ability of state regulators to address consumer protection and other risks posed by virtual currencies through the existing state regulatory framework and processes. Still, committee members raised broader questions about the how to define or categorize virtual currencies (e.g. as a currency versus as a security) and the impact of such a classification on a range of other issues including monetary policy and tax administration. The breadth of the issues, which may need to be addressed by a range of government actors, formed the basis of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Tom Carper’s (D-DE) call for a “whole government” approach to virtual currency.
New York Banking Regulator Plans Virtual Currency Hearing, Considers Licensing Requirements
On November 14, New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky issued a notice that the DFS intends to hold a public hearing on virtual currency regulation in New York City “in the coming months.” The hearing will focus on the interconnection between money transmission regulations and virtual currencies. Additionally, the hearing is expected to consider the need for and feasibility of a licensing regime specific to virtual currency transactions and activities (i.e. a “BitLicense”), which would include anti-money laundering and consumer protection requirements for licensed entities. The notice makes clear that no decisions on licensing or other regulation of virtual currencies has been made. Rather the hearing and license notice is part of the agency’s broader inquiry launched in August into the need for a regulatory framework specific to virtual currencies. With regard to potential licensing, the DFS would like stakeholders to consider: (i) what, if any, specific types of virtual currency transactions and activities should require a BitLicense; (ii) whether entities that are issued a BitLicense should be required to follow specifically tailored anti-money laundering or consumer protection guidelines; and (iii) whether entities that are issued a BitLicense should be required to follow specifically tailored regulatory examination requirements.
Senate Committee Expands Review of Virtual Currency Policies
On August 12, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), the leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano regarding federal virtual currency policy. The committee reportedly sent similar letters to the DOJ, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department, the SEC, the CFTC, and the OMB. Citing a federal court’s recent holding that virtual currency Bitcoin is money or currency for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as other recent developments related to virtual currencies, the lawmakers seek information about (i) the agencies’ existing policies on virtual currencies, (ii) coordination among federal or state entities related to the treatment of virtual currencies, and (iii) “any plans” “strategies” or “ongoing initiatives” regarding virtual currencies. This recent scrutiny of virtual currencies follows regulatory and enforcement actions taken earlier this year, including guidance issued by FinCEN and federal criminal charges against a digital currency issuer and money transfer system. For a review of those actions and other state and federal regulatory challenges facing emerging payment providers, please see a recent article by BuckleySandler attorney and Ian Spear.
New York Considering Virtual Currency Regulations; Issues Subpoenas to Bitcoin-Associated Companies
On August 12, New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky issued a notice of inquiry about the “appropriate regulatory guidelines that [the NY DFS] should put in place for virtual currencies.” The NY DFS notes the emergence of Bitcoin and other virtual currency as the catalyst for its inquiry and states that it already has “conducted significant preliminary work.” That preliminary work includes 22 subpoenas the NY DFS reportedly issued last week to companies associated with Bitcoin. The NY DFS is concerned that virtual currency exchangers may be engaging in money transmission as defined in New York. Under existing New York law, and the laws of a majority of other states, companies engaged in money transmission must obtain a license, post collateral, submit to periodic examinations, and comply with anti-money laundering laws. However, the NY DFS also suggests that regulating virtual currency under existing money transmission rules may not be the most beneficial approach. Instead, it is considering “new guidelines that are tailored to the unique characteristics of virtual currencies.” The NY DFS notice does not provide any timeline for further action on these issues.
State, Federal Authorities Increase Scrutiny of Virtual Currencies, Emerging Payment Providers
On August 12, New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky issued a notice of inquiry about the “appropriate regulatory guidelines that [the NY DFS] should put in place for virtual currencies.” The NY DFS notes the emergence of Bitcoin and other virtual currency as the catalyst for its inquiry, and the notice states that the NY DFS already has “conducted significant preliminary work.” That preliminary work includes 22 subpoenas the NY DFS reportedly issued last week to companies associated with Bitcoin.
The NY DFS is concerned that virtual currency exchangers may be engaging in money transmission as defined in New York. Under existing New York law, and the laws of a majority of other states, companies engaged in money transmission must obtain a license, post collateral, submit to periodic examinations, and comply with anti-money laundering laws. However, the NY DFS also suggests that regulating virtual currency under existing money transmission rules may not be the most beneficial approach. Instead, it is considering “new guidelines that are tailored to the unique characteristics of virtual currencies.” The NY DFS notice does not provide any timeline for further action on these issues.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is reviewing federal policy as it relates to virtual currencies. On August 12, the leaders of that committee, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano regarding federal virtual currency policy. The committee reportedly sent similar letters to the DOJ, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department, the SEC, the CFTC, and the OMB. Citing a federal court’s recent holding that Bitcoin is money or currency for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as other recent developments related to virtual currencies, the lawmakers seek information about (i) the agencies’ existing policies on virtual currencies, (ii) coordination among federal or state entities related to the treatment of virtual currencies, and (iii) “any plans,” “strategies,” or “ongoing initiatives” regarding virtual currencies. The letter specifically notes the importance of balancing the need to deal with “potential threats and risks . . . swiftly” with the goal of ensuring that “rash or uninformed actions don’t stifle a potentially valuable technology.”
This recent scrutiny of virtual currencies follows regulatory and enforcement actions taken earlier this year, including guidance issued by FinCEN and federal criminal charges against a digital currency issuer and money transfer system. For a review of those actions and other state and federal regulatory challenges facing emerging payment providers, please see a recent article by BuckleySandler attorney and Ian Spear.
Federal District Court Holds Bitcoin is Money, SEC Can Pursue Bitcoin-Based Securities Charges
On August 6, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the SEC’s claims that a Texas man and his company defrauded investors in a Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin. SEC v. Shavers, No. 13-416, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2013). The SEC filed suit last month alleging that the man misled investors with false assurances about the investment opportunity in Bitcoin-denominated investments he offered and sold through the Internet, while actually using Bitcoin payments received from new investors to make purported interest payments and to cover investor withdrawals. In addressing subject matter jurisdiction, the court held that the institution’s investments meet the definition of investment contract, and are securities because, among other things, Bitcoin is within the definition of “money” for purposes of the rules governing investment contracts – Bitcoin can purchase goods or services, and can be exchanged for conventional government-backed currencies. Therefore, the court held that investors who provided Bitcoin investments provided “money,” and the court has jurisdiction to hear the case under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934.
Federal Authorities Announce Major Money Laundering Action Against Virtual Currency Service
On May 28, the DOJ announced the unsealing of an indictment against a global virtual currency service and seven of its principals and employees, alleging that the firm and its employees knowingly facilitated money laundering and operated an unlicensed money transmitting business. According to the DOJ, since 2001, the digital currency service allegedly facilitated an anonymous payment and value storage system that allowed more than one million users, including 200,000 Americans, to launder and store more than $6 billion in criminal proceeds and to facilitate approximately 55 million illicit transactions. The funds processed and stored by the system allegedly related to underlying criminal acts including identity theft, computer hacking, and child pornography. Federal law enforcement authorities also seized several Internet domain names involved in the scheme and effectively blocked access to any funds in the system. Concurrently, the Treasury Department for the first time exercised its powers under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act against a virtual currency provider, declaring the provider to be a “prime money laundering concern,” which will prohibit covered U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign banks that are being used to process transactions through the virtual currency service.
FinCEN Issues Guidance on Virtual Currencies
On March 18, FinCEN issued guidance to clarify the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act regulations to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies. FinCEN clarifies that a person that obtains a virtual currency to purchase goods or service (a “user”) does not fit within the regulatory definition of a money transmission service, and therefore is not subject to the relevant regulations. However, a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency (an “exchanger”), and a person engaged as a business in issuing a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem such virtual currency (an “administrator”), generally are considered money transmitters under FinCEN's regulations if they (i) accept and transmit a convertible virtual currency or (ii) buy or sell convertible virtual currency for any reason. The guidance reviews FinCEN’s specific determinations regarding different activities involving virtual currencies and the appropriate regulatory treatment of administrators and exchangers under each of the scenarios. Specifically, the guidance addresses (i) brokers and dealers of e-currencies and e-precious metals; (ii) centralized convertible virtual currencies; and (iii) de-centralized convertible virtual currencies.