Sources
Loading...
Additional media
Loading...
DeepNewz, mobile.
People-sourced. AI-powered. Unbiased News.
A new paper published in The International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators addresses the implications of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) interpretation of Section 1960 of the criminal code, which penalizes unlicensed money transmitting businesses. Authored by Amanda Tuminelli, Jacob Chervinsky, and Daniel Barabander, the paper argues that the DOJ's view that non-custodial smart contract protocols qualify as money transmitting businesses is a misunderstanding of the law. The authors contend that such interpretations could unjustly criminalize decentralized finance (DeFi) developers. The paper emphasizes the need for clarity in legal definitions, particularly regarding software that does not take control of user funds, which the authors believe should not fall under the purview of Section 1960.
What if you could be sued for distributing the law, because parts of the law are copyrighted? https://t.co/AfeUELXagg @RSI's @CanyonBrimhall talks about the problems with the Pro Codes Act
This is a really important and thoughtful paper on money transmission in the digital assets context. Courts need to make clear that Section 1960 can only apply to custodial systems. Thank you @amandatums, @dbarabander, and @jchervinsky for the hard work here. https://t.co/u0DyVom2XJ
The issue of whether non custodial software that never takes control over user funds can be a money transmitter is just as if not more existential in crypto than the security v community debate. Thx to @amandatums @jchervinsky and @dbarabander for addressing it in a new paper… https://t.co/5hkeipd8hx