It depends. Often law enforcement investigations come with gag orders so the service provider cannot tell the customer they are under investigation.
That’s what you see when you read “do not directly tell the user to run”?
And if that's all they'd done, they might have skated by with just fines. Then they wrote down "do not directly tell the user to run."
How's that different than AML regulations that require banks to "not directly tell" customers they're being investigated?
And this document directly admits that this is an attempt to covertly notify them of something that it is illegal to notify them of. Any shred of plausible deniability that procedure provided them is gone now, because this document is now public.
There's literally nothing in there that says they're breaking gag orders.
From the article:
> The CFTC has alleged that "Binance has taken a calculated, phased approach to increase its United States presence despite publicly stating its purported intent to 'block' or 'restrict' customers located in the United States from accessing its platform... All the while, Binance, Zhao, and Lim, the platform's Chief Compliance Officer ('CCO'), have each known that Binance's solicitation of customers located in the United States subjected Binance to registration and regulatory requirements under U.S. law.
That seems to be what CFC is arguing here.
No, its an exchange, which among other things handles commodities, hence why the CFTC, not banking regulators, is suing.
Since the launch of its platform in 2017, Binance has taken a calculated, phased approach to increase its United States presence despite publicly stating its purported intent to “block” or “restrict” customers located in the United States from accessing its platform. Binance’s initial phase of strategically targeting the United States focused on soliciting retail customers. In a later phase, Binance increasingly relied on personnel and vendors in the United States and actively cultivated lucrative and commercially important “VIP” customers, including institutional customers, located in the United States. All the while, Binance, Zhao, and Lim, the platform’s former Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), have each known that Binance’s solicitation of customers located in the United States subjected Binance to registration and regulatory requirements under U.S. law. But Binance, Zhao, and Lim have all chosen to ignore those requirements and undermined Binance’s ineffective compliance program by taking steps to help customers evade Binance’s access controls.
It's pretty simple.
(Not subject to US regulation, Eurodollar is a thing)
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
As they should be. If they aren't laundering money for Russian criminals and designated terrorist organizations.
FinCEN seems to be on top of working to segregate compliant from non-compliant decentralized exchanges, as well as the people using and developing them.
This is basic stuff covered in AML training for any bank intern at a 3rd string bank 20 years ago. Just incredible.
It’s almost as if modern finance is regulated for a reason.
The crypto exchange space. Exchanges are really just unregulated banks in disguise: all the drawbacks and none of the benefits. They're the very same centralized banking intitutions cryptocurrencies were supposed to put an end to.