Once 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 info made them conscious of the hazard, enabling them to evacuate earlier than it was too late.
On Could 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 will 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 authentic instrument that has been inadvertently utilized by criminals. By its nature and operation, the instrument is particularly meant for criminals.”
In search of 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 doubtless that this case will generate little empathy and curiosity, because the particular person concerned labored within the crypto business, and the instrument developed, Twister Money, was meant to protect transaction confidentiality.
Nevertheless, it could be a grave mistake to think about this an remoted incident restricted to a fledgling business 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 bolstered, 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 lowered to a mere shadow.
The struggle in opposition to cash laundering and terrorist financing has degenerated into collective hysteria worthy of authoritarian and even totalitarian regimes, to the purpose of criminalizing a elementary and constitutional proper: privateness. The well-known American laptop engineer Phil Zimmermann warned us in 1991: “if privateness is outlawed, solely outlaws can have privateness.”
Removed from being a “crypto” concern, 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 possibly can 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 triggered 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 Individuals to not use “cash transmitting companies” that don’t accumulate their identification and are usually not registered. And the Federal Bureau continued by threatening to freeze all funds that had been blended 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 gives 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 liable 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 liable for what his purchasers determine 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 shouldn’t be liable 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 accountability for its remaining use, as there isn’t any restrict to this reasoning.
This query was truly raised 20 years in the past concerning peer-to-peer exchanges, which permit a number of individuals to change info immediately in a decentralized method. This communication protocol and the software program that allow it are typically used to commit offenses, significantly in opposition to 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 liable for the use made by third events. The case legislation then centered on the accountability of every particular person concerned in a doubtlessly criminality, acquitting some people on account of lack of proof of their felony intent7. These judicial options are clearly in step with the traditional train of elementary rights.
The second concern lies in the specter of fund blocking.
Freezing any cash blended 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 fallacious palms.
In 2009, a college research lined 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 risk: nearly all of the money on the earth has already handed by means of the fallacious palms. Ought to all money holders be imprisoned? In fact not.
Following these absurd coercive actions, on 26 April 2024, the US Legal professional for the Southern District of New York revealed the federal government’s rationale in opposition to Roman Storm9, the lead developer of the privateness software program Twister Money. The creator insists, contemplating Twister Money as a “cash transmitting enterprise.”
In response to this argument, “the definition of “cash transmitting” in Part 1960 doesn’t require the cash transmitter to have ‘management’ of the funds being transferred. […] For example, a USB cable transfers knowledge from one machine to a different […].”
A really broad definition of a “cash transmitting enterprise” that may even embody USB cables, in line with their very own admission. At this price, the query will quickly develop into “who shouldn’t be a cash transmitter?”
Right here, the DOJ (Division of Justice) is so bold that it goes in opposition to the rules offered 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 forex.”10).
In 2019, following an inquiry concerning sure programmable options on Bitcoin (Time-locked and multi-signature), FinCen reiterated that the partial management that may very well be exercised by pockets builders was not enough to qualify them as “cash transmitters” (“the particular person taking part within the transaction to offer further validation on the request of the proprietor doesn’t have completely impartial 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 best way the legislation must be utilized in a liberal democracy, let’s recall that cryptocurrency transfers are transfers of digital communications in line with the definition offered by European Union law12.
Furthermore, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum enable for the change of communications that may be certified as correspondences (the chances of change are usually not restricted to financial items). Digital communications are protected by the fitting to privateness and private knowledge safety, and a limitation equivalent to lifting confidentiality or blocking can solely be justified whether it is essential 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 proscribed.
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 basic 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 are able to additionally invoke an infringement on the fitting to property.
It’s subsequently inconceivable, in a liberal democracy, to ask a personal actor to dam transactions or different forms of communications with out being sure of their illegality.
We are able to word one other handy schizophrenia on the a part of the American authorities, which Lyn Alden aptly summarizes by referring to “Schrödinger’s Forex”14: Bitcoin is taken into account as a forex 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 essential to think about that what’s being transmitted (bitcoins) is certainly cash. To the purpose that the federal government argues that “Bitcoin clearly qualifies as cash” so as to prosecute Roman Storm.
Europe repeatedly engages on this distortion as properly, 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 forex…
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 are able to significantly word a €10,000 money cost 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 below €1,000, and for private wallets, generally known 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, although it’s a part of the traditional train of freedoms. There are not 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 word that it’s significantly exact and imposes know-your-customer (KYC) necessities for transactions below €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 shouldn’t be 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 so forth.) are nameless, as remains to be money at this time. The ban is subsequently inequitable and strikes below the pretext of its digital nature. It’s once more unjustified, though it unacceptably hinders the traditional train of a freedom since we’re speaking about its outright extinction (such a disproportion shouldn’t be 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 elementary freedoms on which the European Union was constructed and to which it’s topic. Third, as a result of they’re counterproductive, that means they create new threats, the implications of that are more and more extreme.
3. An Unfounded Paranoia
Practically all texts coping with the “essential” 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 a superb means to facilitate cash laundering.”
To understand this, one solely wants to investigate all of the texts on the topic issued lately. That is an train I’ve already accomplished for the TFR text17. Certainly, within the “proportionality” paragraph of the proposed modification to the regulation, there’s a small phrase indicating that, in line with the opinion of EU surveillance authorities, “particular” risk-increasing components have been recognized regarding cryptos.
Why is proportionality an especially essential precept in a state ruled by the rule of legislation?
As a result of the adequacy of a legislative customary or instrument to the pursued goal, i.e., the steadiness between the infringement on a proper and the overall curiosity, is totally essential to keep away from authoritarian and liberty-infringing drifts. One can not cover behind an goal, nonetheless commendable, to impose disproportionate restrictions on rights.
For instance, one may assume that by putting in a policeman in everybody’s dwelling, crime could be lowered. The target could also be thought of laudable, however the person rights that may be compromised within the course of characterize an unacceptable discount in freedoms. Thus, society decides to tolerate doubtlessly increased crime charges (topic to the dangers to freedoms generated by surveillance itself) so as to protect the rule of legislation and elementary freedoms, with out which democracy can not exist.
Conversely, the prohibition of alcohol whereas driving is a restriction that may be thought of proportionate: alcohol consumption shouldn’t be prohibited, however it’s prohibited in conditions the place its consumption is systematically harmful for oneself and others. The impacts of such laws will be monitored by observing the variety of accidents, for instance. A proper has been restricted, actually, however the basic curiosity prevails for the reason that effectiveness of the measure in relation to an essential goal (the preservation of life) will 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 essential to realize 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, relationship from 2019, itself admits that the so-called “competent authorities” would not have the “data and understanding of those merchandise and property, which prevents them from finishing up a correct influence 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 reasonably laconic evaluation: “the phenomenon of Digital Currencies being assessed has not existed for a enough period of time for there to be quantitative proof out there of the present dangers, neither is this of the standard required for a strong rating.”21
In different phrases, the TFR regulation, imposing monitoring of all crypto transfers from one supplier to a different, was constructed on the idea of two experiences. 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 important to realize its targets” is questionable at finest. For the reason that dangers are usually not assessed, it appears tough to characterize the restriction of rights as “proportionate.”
In his struggle in opposition to FINMA, Alexis Roussel made the identical statement for Switzerland. The Swiss Nationwide Threat Evaluation (NRA) of 201822 concerning cash laundering dangers in crypto signifies, from its very first sentence, that no circumstances of terrorism financing associated to crypto have been recognized, and solely uncommon circumstances of cash laundering. Nevertheless, the following 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 stage 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 are able to clearly see a sample emerge: anti-money laundering laws and more and more stringent knowledge assortment necessities are imposed with out authentic foundation or factual knowledge to justify their implementation.
A extra complete overview has been offered 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 international 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 refined 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 might 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 fact 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 reasonably on the evaluation of the implementation of laws. Laws that, it’s price noting, are based mostly on unproven cash laundering.
Concerning the research of information and the sector, the report apparently notes that the chance evaluation “lacks depth.” It additionally observes that almost all of regulators lack the instruments and experience essential to successfully analyze and examine circumstances 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 circumstances of cash laundering involving digital property, it prefers to conclude that it’s as a result of extra regulation is required, reasonably than contemplating that cash laundering shouldn’t be overrepresented in these property.
As for the IMF, it is no higher: the newest report on public insurance policies associated to crypto-assets (September 2023)27 factors out the shortage of knowledge on cash laundering and terrorism financing dangers, stating that “such impacts haven’t been particularly studied in relation to crypto-assets.”
The IMF’s International 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 Property” was not addressed within the Threat Evaluation and calls on public authorities and corporations to offer 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 now have come full circle: experiences cite one another, asking for extra readability on the figures, however no person ever conducts the research itself. We depend on FATF, an unelected physique, not topic to the principles of a decent democracy, particularly concerning proportionality, as I discussed earlier.
The target is now not to permit a proportionate struggle in opposition to cash laundering however to lift the requirements of controls yearly, forgetting the rationale why these controls have been carried out 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 targets of effectivity and proportionality are now not at stake. There isn’t any doubt that if FATF really useful placing a policeman behind each laptop, 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 firms is totally not centered on combating cash laundering and its effectiveness. Certainly, since MiCA has not even entered into drive but, and the difference 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 presumably choose that they should be strengthened?
The reasoning behind the strengthening of controls is in actual fact a lot less complicated: “As a consequence of speedy technological developments and the development in FATF requirements, it’s essential to evaluate that method.”
It isn’t the evolution of the risk, its evaluation, the means utilized by criminals, or the outcomes of a research, and so forth., however reasonably the development in FATF requirements that leads Europe to align itself.
And the subsequent steps are already laid out: “On the similar time, advances in innovation, equivalent 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 just a few hundred individuals connecting concurrently, and because the hype subsides, they’re already being talked about as nothing lower than “avenues” for cash laundering.
In the event you’re searching for numbers and analyses, look elsewhere. The imposition of further surveillance requirements depends extra on beliefs and perceptions than on information as a result of nobody dares to oppose as a policymaker, risking being equated with a supporter of terrorism or cash laundering. It is subsequently a real faith, one which turns into nearly unattainable to query at its core.
The digital transition has been enormously useful for states: with the should be banked to reap the benefits of monetary globalization, resulting in the omnipresence of banks, the variety of potential targets to watch 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 dwelling to at least one the place, a minimum of 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 complete monetary regulation of the previous 30 years is out of date, as it’s based mostly on an assumption that’s now not legitimate, specifically the necessity for a monetary middleman to conduct transactions within the digital world.
In tomorrow’s world the place firms will make wallet-to-wallet funds, who will carry out KYC? Will we solely notice the absurdity of the mannequin when half the planet is working to watch the opposite half?
Bitcoin shakes the very foundations of anti-money laundering efforts. And reasonably than questioning the regulation and its relevance, each when it comes to effectiveness and when it comes to respect for elementary freedoms, we desire the trail of blindness, which ends up in limiting using a technologically impartial instrument by arbitrarily impeding innovation, the fitting to property, and the safety of change confidentiality, the significance of which for democracy, notably by means of encryption of exchanges, has lately 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 elementary 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 struggle in opposition to terrorism. Quite the opposite, it provides him a victory with no struggle, by displaying how fragile our rules have 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 the 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 might be one in every of his final earlier than disappearing and preserving his anonymity.
[5] US Legal professional’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.internet/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 Forex Software program Improvement and Sure Funding Exercise, 2014, https://www.fincen.gov/assets/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/utility/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 Primarily based 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 Property, 2023, https://rm.coe.int/0900001680abdec4
[30] Monetary Stability Board, MF-FSB Synthesis Paper: Insurance policies for Crypto-Property, 2023 https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R070923-1.pdf
[31] FMI, International 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 Technology 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 Nations’ NRAs, 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b860c956-659e-5005-93c9-4f06993c37ab/content material
[35] World Financial institution Group, Crypto-Property Exercise across the World Evolution and Macro-Monetary Drivers, 2022, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/738261646750320554/pdf/Crypto-Property-Exercise-around-the-World-Evolution-and-Macro-Monetary-Drivers.pdf
