Connect with us

Blockchain

Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Stablecoins by Atty. Rafael Padilla

Avatar

Published

on

Please share and grow the BitPinas community.

Atty. Rafael Padilla, Co-Founder and Trustee of BlockDevs Asia and Professor of Law at San Beda Alabang, examined stablecoins, its issuances, and the legal and regulatory ramifications of such within key areas of securities regulation, anti-money laundering and financial service licensing. You can download the whitepaper here or read it below:

Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Stablecoins

Professor of Law, San Beda Alabang School of Law
Co-Founder & Trustee, BlockDevs Asia
https://www.blockdevs.asia/ 
rafpadilla@farcovelaw.com
30 October 2020

ABSTRACT: The legal and regulatory ramifications of stablecoins in the Philippines and beyond should be examined considering key factors such as the facts and circumstances surrounding the stablecoin issuance, its technical design and stabilization mechanism, the administrative structure of governance (centralized vis-à-vis decentralized), the specific use case for the stablecoin, and the rights and obligations of parties involved in a transaction. While the use of stablecoins could implicate several aspects of the law, three areas attained some level of prominence within legal and policy circles: securities regulation, anti-money laundering (AML), and financial service licensing.

Table of Contents.

1. Introduction

One of the peculiar characteristics of conventional cryptocurrencies is the high volatility of their value in the token market. This is often frowned upon by merchants because of the added complexity in accounting, while professional traders are delighted by the unpredictability as it opens more opportunities for profit. Stablecoins are designed to take advantage of cryptocurrency’s instant settlement feature and at the same time introduce stability to the value of the digital asset.

stablecoin is a special type of digital asset specifically engineered to ensure that it maintains its peg to a fixed target price. Stability of value may be achieved through various technology approaches, economic incentives or collateral arrangement. Some stablecoins may be backed by legal tender (i.e., “fiat-backed”), commodity, or another cryptoasset. Fiat-backed stablecoins are usually redeemable for the underlying fiat currency, where one unit of the stablecoin can be exchanged for one unit of the underlying fiat currency. Other types of stablecoins may be more complex, decentralized, backed by a basket of assets, or managed by algorithm (i.e., algorithmic stablecoins).[1] A reliable stablecoin (i.e., consistently stable) could enable a variety of use cases in financial services. Stablecoins have gained significant traction as a medium of payment outside the conventional banking system, remittance, as a  hedge against weak fiat currencies in economies marred by hyperinflation, and as a form of  leverage in trading cryptoassets. However, it should be clarified that the term “stablecoin” does not suggest that the token’s value will always be stable, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or legal guarantee of the value or stability of these types of cryptoassets.[2] 

Stablecoins, especially decentralized primitives like DAI, play a critical role in the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Because they are designed to stabilize the value of a digital asset, many DeFi projects encourage the use of stablecoins in their platform due to their viability as a medium of exchange and unit of account within the DeFi ecosystem, as compared to other volatile cryptocurrency alternatives. However, stablecoins present another round of challenges to regulators who are already grappling with general issues concerning cryptocurrencies[3] and “the category-defying changes that cryptocurrency poses.”[4] 

Understanding the legal and regulatory ramifications of stablecoins entails analysis of key factors such as the facts and circumstances surrounding the stablecoin issuance; its technical design and stabilization mechanism; the administrative structure of governance (centralized vis-à-vis decentralized); the rights and obligations of parties involved in transacting the stablecoin; and the specific use case for the stablecoin. That said, some legal areas stand out when it comes to stablecoins. Since the concept first emerged in 2014, legal questions about stablecoins have been explored mainly through the lenses of securities law, anti-money laundering (AML), and financial service regulation (i.e., licensing or chartering). 

2. Stablecoins vis-à-vis securities regulation

Under Section 3.1 of the Securities Regulation Code, the term “securities” includes notes, investment contracts, and derivatives like options and warrants, among others. Most currency-backed stablecoins are issued when a purchaser deposits money (e.g. USD100.00) with a stablecoin issuer (e.g. Tether), and in exchange, the issuer mints and returns an equivalent amount of stablecoins (e.g. 100 USDT tokens). The token holder can later redeem the funds he or she deposited by returning the stablecoin to the issuer. Considering this redemption, it is possible under certain circumstances that a securities regulator will view such stablecoin as “demand note”, which is a two-party negotiable instrument binding a debtor to pay the noteholder at any time upon request.

In the United States, it was held in Reves v. Ernst& Young [5]that demand notes are presumed to be securities, unless an exemption or exclusion applies. The U.S. Supreme Court however clarified that notes are not securities per se. As explained by the Court: 

“Congress’ purpose in enacting the securities laws was to regulate investments, in whatever form they are made and by whatever name they are called. However, notes are used in a variety of settings, not all of which involve investments. Thus, they are not securities per se, but must be defined using the “family resemblance” test. Under that test, a note is presumed to be a security unless it bears a strong resemblance, determined by examining four specified factors, to one of a judicially crafted list of categories of instrument that are not securities. If the instrument is not sufficiently similar to a listed item, a court must decide whether another category should be added by examining the same factors.” [6]

Some stablecoins are structured in a manner that resembles an option, warrant, note, equity or some other multi-layered financial derivative, which could potentially categorize the stablecoin as security. The case of Basis demonstrates this lesson. In 2018, the Basis Project in the United States raised 133 million dollars from a number of prominent funds and venture capital firms, only to shut down and refund those investments eight months later. The Basis protocol was designed to maintain stability by selling through auctions “bond” and “share” tokens to investors who would profit as long as the Basis stablecoin maintains its peg. It seemed obvious that such bond tokens and share tokens would be viewed as an investment contract under federal securities law. Unfortunately, registering the bond token and the share token or applying for exemption was not an option for the Project because registration will subject the token to transfer restrictions which would require the curation of a centralized  whitelist. This would not only compromise the protocol’s censorship resistance, it would also greatly reduce the liquidity of on-chain auctions. Illiquidity will make it impossible to keep  the peg, thus defeating the purpose of the Basis stablecoin. Alternative approaches were considered by the Basis team but they were not compelling and competitive enough, which  ultimately led to the decision to shut down the project.[7]

Depending on the circumstances, a stablecoin might also be treated as a swap which is  an option for the purchase or sale, or based on the value, of one or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, or other financial or economic interests or property of any kind. A  stablecoin may also be regarded as what is known in financial markets as “collateralized FX  swap.”[8] Consistent with this definition, a fiat currency-backed stablecoin could be  characterized as an option for the purchase of, or based on the value of, fiat currencies. Derivatives like options and warrants are included within the definition of a security.[9] 

One of the arguments against the notion that a stablecoin may be characterized as a security is the fact that its price is stable and fixed to its peg; therefore, its holder can neither speculate nor expect profits from holding stablecoins. This is admittedly a strong argument, only that it is not conclusive. It is also true that stablecoins are principally designed to maintain its value, not to generate profits for its holders. But any reference to “expectation of profits” is relevant only when the question is whether an instrument is an investment contract, one of the  securities listed in Section 3.1 of the Securities Regulation Code. The long list of course contains  other classes of securities: 

“SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — 3.1. “Securities” are shares, participation or interests in a corporation or in a commercial enterprise or profit-making venture and evidenced by a certificate, contract, instrument, whether written or electronic in character. It includes:
(a) Shares of stock, bonds, debentures, notes, evidences of indebtedness, asset
backed securities;
(b) Investment contracts, certificates of interest or participation in a profit
sharing agreement, certificates of deposit for a future subscription;
(c) Fractional undivided interests in oil, gas or other mineral rights;
(d) Derivatives like option and warrants;
(e) Certificates of assignments, certificates of participation, trust certificates, voting trust certificates or similar instruments;
(f) Proprietary or nonproprietary membership certificates in corporations;
and
(g) Other instruments as may in the future be determined by the Commission.”

Even in the context of investment contracts, amid an economic era marked by  quantitative easing[10] and negative interest rates,[11] maintaining the value stored in a stablecoin without significant depreciation could be enough to satisfy the “expectation of profits” prong of the Howey Test. The motivation of the tokenholder, rather than the form of “profit”, should be considered in analyzing whether a stablecoin constitutes an investment contract. 

In September 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Public Statement to clarify the legal position of stablecoin: “(w)hether a particular digital asset, including one labeled a stablecoin, is a security under the federal securities laws is inherently a facts and circumstances determination. This determination requires a careful analysis of the nature of the instrument, including the rights it purports to convey, and how it is offered and sold.”[12] While determining whether a stablecoin behaves like a security depends on specific facts and circumstances, it is believed that stablecoins that are algorithmically derived or those  that are not “provably fully-backed” by collateral are exposed to a higher risk that they would  be regarded as security. Nevertheless, in the same Statement noted above, the U.S. SEC also  confirmed that a project (including stablecoin issuers) may structure and sell a digital asset in such a way that it does not constitute a security and implicate the registration, disclosure, reporting, and other requirements imposed by securities law.[13] 

3. Money laundering risks associated with stablecoins

With respect to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combatting of Financing of  Terrorism (CFT), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued guidance on the money  laundering risks associated with stablecoins, which was prompted by the rising adoption of this unique type of cryptoasset for trading and other cross-border transactions:

“Emerging assets such as so-called global “stablecoins”, and their proposed  global networks and platforms, could potentially cause a shift in the virtual asset ecosystem and have implications for the money laundering and terrorist financing risks. There are two concerns: mass-market adoption of virtual assets and person-to-person transfers, without the need for a regulated intermediary. Together these changes could have serious consequences for our ability to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.”

“In general terms, both global “stablecoins” and their service providers would  be subject to the FATF standards either as virtual assets and virtual asset  service providers or as traditional financial assets and their service providers. They should never be outside the scope of anti-money laundering controls.”[14] 

“While decentralised so-called stablecoins without such an identifiable central  body, prima facie, may carry greater ML/ TF risks due to their diffuse operation, the FATF considers that their potential for mass-adoption is lower than centralized arrangements and, therefore, their associated ML/TF risks are smaller (although still present). However, even in a decentralised structure, there could also be a range of entities with AML/CFT obligations, including customer-facing exchanges and transfer services and custodial wallet providers. Importantly, there are functions that may mean an entity has AML/CFT obligations prior to the launch of a decentralised so-called stablecoin, as the process necessary to bring a product to launch is unlikely to be able to be fully decentralised.”[15] 

4. Licensing implications of stablecoins

With respect to financial service regulation, it has been observed that some stablecoins are minted in a manner that can be construed as issuance of electronic money. In the Philippines, an electronic money or e-money means monetary value as represented by a claim on its issuer that is (1) electronically stored in an instrument or device; (2) issued against receipt of funds of an amount not lesser in value than the monetary value issued; (3) accepted as a means of payment by persons or entities other than the issuer; and (4) withdrawable in cash or cash equivalent.[16] 

It is believed that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) regulation of Virtual  Currency Exchange[17] does not apply to stablecoin projects that as a business do not facilitate their conversion to fiat currency. In this context, the issuance and the redeemability of a fiat backed stablecoin should not be interpreted as conversion or exchange of “fiat currency to  virtual asset, and vice versa.” This is because the fiat currency here is deposited to the token issuer to collateralize the stablecoin as its way of maintaining the peg. Neither the holder nor the token issuer intends to trade the fiat currency for stablecoin, and there is always an undertaking from the token issuer that the stablecoin is redeemable for an equivalent unit of fiat currency deposited by the tokenholder.

Centralized stablecoin issuers, as distinguished from decentralized stablecoin projects, should also consider how facilitating payments, using their stablecoin as medium of exchange, could implicate payment service regulations. The same can be said to an independent service provider that process payments for customers by taking advantage of stablecoins especially in cross-border transactions. The relevant legal framework in this scenario is the National Payment Systems Act.[18] 

Moreover, the financial stability implications of stablecoins should be considered. Because of their innate low volatility and considering that their digital nature enable usage to scale quickly, stablecoins could become attractive payment instruments for consumers, merchants and enterprises. Consequently, stablecoins have the potential of becoming systemically important within the domestic payment system, through the substitution of the local currency, or even on a global scale.[19] Indeed, according to the Financial Stability Board (FSB), stablecoins could pose regulatory and supervisory challenges at the international level: 

“Such challenges could involve the compatibility of national approaches or potential outright gaps resulting from the global nature of stablecoin arrangements. Hence, analysis would focus on understanding how the existing international standards and principles support effective regulatory and supervisory cooperation in addressing risks to global financial stability and market functioning arising from stablecoins; and what, if any, actions may be needed to further strengthen cooperation and coordination to address global financial stability and systemic risk concerns.”

In the United States, some currency-backed stablecoin issuers obtained state-issued  limited purpose trust company charters, which authorizes them to engage in specific trust functions such as depositing and safekeeping of assets. The principle is that these stablecoin  issuers act as trustees, administering financial assets on behalf of the stablecoin users. Taking  the role of a fiduciary, a stablecoin issuer/trust company undertakes to manage, record, monitor and safeguard the assets under its control. In the Philippines, trust companies, are regulated by the BSP. Under Sec. 79 of the General Banking Law:[20] “(o)nly a stock corporation or a person duly authorized by the Monetary Board to engage in trust business shall act as a trustee or administer any trust or hold property in trust or on deposit for the use, benefit, or on behalf of others.” As a fiduciary, the General Banking law requires a trust entity to  “administer the funds or property under its custody with the diligence that a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with similar aims.”[21] 

In other scenarios, a redeemable stablecoin that is collateralized by tangible assets, or even by other intangible assets such as securities except cryptocurrencies, may be viewed as unit trust depending on its structure and other factors.[22] In general, such unit trusts, such as  collective investment schemes, are governed by the Investment Company Act[23] and the relevant provisions of the Securities Regulation Code.[24] Based on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Investment Company Act, this could entail setting up a Mutual Fund  Company (MFC) that will issue units of participation each of which represents an undivided interest in the pool of investment assets of the scheme.[25] However, the Investment Company Act might not be applicable in some cases, especially when it comes to decentralized  stablecoins. Determining the regulations that apply to an asset-backed stablecoin will ultimately depend on the nature of the collateral. 

Applying for a financial service license or charter also means that the stablecoin would  have to be designed in a manner that would enable compliance with financial regulations.[26] 

For various reasons including technical and economic, not all stablecoin projects could afford redesigning their architecture to qualify for regulatory approvals. The case of Basis, discussed above, once again comes in mind. But for those who can afford to redesign their platforms,  specifically issuers with a centralized stablecoin framework, they should set and implement adequate governance programs, know-your-client (KYC), AML measures, data privacy and  cyber-resilience, in compliance with the standards set by financial regulators. 

5. Conclusion: The future of stablecoins 

In the United States, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued official guidance clarifying that federally chartered national banks and savings associations can legally hold reserve funds for stablecoin issuers. However, the Interpretative Letter applies only to the use of stablecoin backed on a 1:1 basis by a single fiat currency where the bank verifies that reserve account balances are always equal to or greater than the number of the issuer’s outstanding stablecoins.[27] According to the OCC: “national banks may provide permissible banking services to any lawful business they choose, including cryptocurrency businesses, so long as they effectively manage the risks and comply with applicable law, including those relating to the BSA and anti-money laundering. Accordingly, national banks may receive deposits from  stablecoin issuers, including deposits that constitute reserves for a stablecoin associated with hosted wallets. In connection with these activities, a national bank may also engage in any  activity incidental receiving deposits from stablecoin issuers.”[28] 

As a final note on the regulatory consequences of stablecoins, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) examined the legal characterization of stablecoins. As use cases for stablecoins continue to evolve, the BIS summarized the important considerations as follows: 

“As regards the legal characterization of stablecoins, the most relevant determinative factors are whether or not they are considered as a money equivalent; categorized as contractual claims or property rights; or entail a right against an issuer or against underlying assets. In some jurisdictions, stablecoins may constitute a security or financial instrument, such as a debt instrument, or represent an interest in a fund or collective investment vehicle and be subject to applicable laws relating to securities and financial  instruments. Particular issues may arise in a cross-jurisdictional context, as there is a need to determine which jurisdiction’s law applies to individual elements in the overall design and which jurisdiction’s courts have competency to settle disputes. There is also a potential for conflicts of law, given the different treatments in different jurisdictions. The applicable financial sector law in certain jurisdictions may not be keeping pace with new business models and market activity such as stablecoins. A number of recent initiatives by national authorities are seeking to address this uncertainty. Where an arrangement relies on (distributed ledger technology) to record and transfer monetary value, careful consideration must be given to the legal underpinning of such an arrangement which must be at least as robust as traditional systems. For example, the legal basis regarding the rights and obligations of the relevant parties and settlement finality must always be clear.” [29] 

This article is first published on BitPinas: Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Stablecoins by Atty. Rafael Padilla

References

[1] OCC Interpretive Letter #1172, October 2020, p. 3. (https://www.occ.gov/topics/charters-and licensing/interpretations-and-actions/2020/int1172.pdf)
[2] Financial Stability Board (FSB), Regulatory Issues of Stablecoins, p. 1-2, https://www.fsb.org/wp content/uploads/P181019.pdf (2019).
[3] David Furlonger & Christopher Uzureau, The Real Business of Blockchain, Harvard Business Review Press p. 136 (2019).
[4] Michael Casey & Paul Vigna, The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and The Future of Everything, p. 52 (2018)
[5] 494 U.S. 56 (1990)
[6] Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990)
[7] Basis Statement Dated 13 December 2018 (https://www.basis.io/)
[8] Preston Byrne, 13 July 2017
[9] Sec. 3.1(d), Securities Regulation Code (2000)
[10] Quantitative easing is a monetary policy that involves a central bank or monetary authority purchasing financial instruments from financial institutions usually as a last-resort measure to inject money and credit into the economy and hopefully stimulate productive activities.
[11] Negative interest rate contemplates a bizarre scenario where the borrower is credited with interest, instead of paying interest. This happens after monetary policy and market forces have already brought interest rates down to 0%, but there is still a need to incentive financial institutions to lend to borrower rather than hoard funds.
[12] U.S. SEC, Public Statement, SEC FinHub Staff Statement on OCC Interpretation, 21 September 2020 (https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/sec-finhub-statement-occ-interpretation)
[13] Id
[14] FATF, Money Laundering Risks From “Stablecoins” and Other Emerging Assets, 18 October 2019 http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfgeneral/documents/statement-virtual-assets-global-stablecoins.html
[15] FATF Report to the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on So-called Stablecoins, July 2020, https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfgeneral/docu- ments/report-g20-so-called-stablecoins-june 2020.html
[16] BSP Circular 649; Guidelines on Issuance of Electronic Money (2009)
[17] BSP Circular 944; Guidelines on Virtual Currency Exchanges (2017)
[18] R.A. No. 11127 (2018)
[19] FSB, Regulatory Issues of Stablecoins, p. 1-2, https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P181019.pdf (2019)
[20] R.A .No.8791 (2000)
[21] Sec. 80, General Banking Law (2000)
[22] Preston Byrne (2017)
[23] R.A. No. 2629 (1960)
[24] R.A. No 8799 (200)
[25] Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Investment Company Act (2017)
[26] For example, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) requires following stringent measures in approving currency-backed stablecoins
[27] OCC Interpretive Letter #1172, October 2020. (https://www.occ.gov/topics/charters-and licensing/interpretations-and-actions/2020/int1172.pdf)
[28] Id, p. 4 (2020)
[29] Bank for International Settlements, Investigating the Global Impact of Stablecoins, https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d187.pdf (2019)

Please share and grow the BitPinas community.

Source: https://bitpinas.com/regulation/legal-and-regulatory-aspects-of-stablecoins-by-atty-rafael-padilla/

Blockchain

The Changes Continue: Facebook’s Libra Has Been Rebranded To Diem

Avatar

Published

on

  • Facebook shook the world last year after announcing plans to introduce a “single global digital currency” dubbed Libra. However, the social media giant’s efforts were quickly scalded by global regulators as the project received massive blowback.
  • Facebook didn’t give up on its idea. Instead, the company decided to rebrand its two main products. Firstly, the Calibra wallet became Novi, and today, Reuters reported that the Libra name had been changed to Diem (meaning ‘day’ in Latin.) 
  • Stuart Levey, CEO of the Geneva-based Diem Association behind the digital coin, confirmed that the name change comes as a direct consequence of the regulatory hurdles. He noted that “the original name was tied to an early iteration of the project that received a difficult reception from regulators. We have dramatically changed that proposition.”
  • The Diem currency would operate as a signal dollar-backed digital coin. Although Levey failed to specify the timing of the launch, recent reports suggested that it may arrive as early as January 2021. 
  • Levey further explained that the Novi team has already begun building a digital wallet that will eventually hold Diem coins. Apart from waiting for approval from Swiss regulators to launch, the Diem Network is also in talks with US federal and state watchdogs. However, Levey didn’t disclose the nature of those negotiations. 
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/the-changes-continue-facebooks-libra-has-been-rebranded-to-diem/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Coinbase Faciliated MicroStrategy’s $425M Bitcoin Purchase Without Moving The Market

Avatar

Published

on

The leading US-based cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase assisted in MicroStrategy’s massive purchase of $425 million worth of BTC. The platform pledged to help other large firms diversify their portfolios with bitcoin in the future as well.

Coinbase Involved In MicroStrategy’s BTC Purchase

The NASDAQ-listed business intelligence firm made the news on two occasions earlier this year as it announced the total purchase of 38,250 bitcoins. At the time, this sizeable amount equaled about $425 million.

However, the entity that helped broker the deal remained unknown until today. The San Francisco-based crypto exchange Coinbase announced that it was “selected as the primary execution partner for MicroStrategy’s $425 million purchase of Bitcoin.”

The community speculated on how such a considerable amount didn’t move the markets as the price of BTC remained relatively still back then. Coinbase explained that this was the company’s intention in the first place:

“Using our advanced execution capabilities, leading crypto prime brokerage platform, and OTC desk, we were able to buy a significant amount of bitcoin on behalf of MicroStrategy and did so without moving the market.”

Furthermore, the exchange noted that its system takes a single large order and breaks it into many small pieces that are executed across multiple trading venues. This type of smart order routing reduces the trade’s impact on the market and assists in disguising the overall trade size.

This also helped MicroStrategy to get a better price for its BTC purchase as Coinbase’s trading team “achieved an average execution price that was less than the price at which the buying started.” The post highlighted that this strategy ultimately saved 1% (or about $4.25 million) for the NASDAQ-listed company.

More Large Companies To Come?

MicroStrategy’s purchase kicked off a wave of large companies and prominent individual investors who expressed willingness to get in bitcoin as well.

Jack Dorsey’s Square followed with a $50 million BTC allocation. More recently, the Wall Street giant Guggenheim Partners filed a document with the SEC to purchase about $500 million worth of bitcoin for one of its funds.

Coinbase asserted that more firms will look to BTC to hedge or diversify their excess cash. Consequently, the large US exchange will “look forward to helping more corporate companies and institutions looking to diversify their capital allocation strategies with crypto.”

SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/coinbase-faciliated-microstrategys-425m-bitcoin-purchase-without-moving-the-market/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

U.S. DoJ Extradites Key Member of Crypto Ponzi Scheme From Panama

Avatar

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has extradited a principal member of a fraudulent cryptocurrency mining and trading platform from Panama to the United States.

AirBit Club Co-founder to Face Criminal Charges in the U.S.

According to an announcement by the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss, U.S. authorities were able to extradite Gutemberg Dos Santos, co-founder of crypto Ponzi scheme AirBit Club.

Dos Santos, who holds dual citizenship from Brazil and the United States, was extradited to the U.S. from Panama on Nov. 23, 2020. According to Strauss, Dos Santos’ repatriation was possible with the help of the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

As reported by CryptoPotato back in August, the U.S. authorities arrested five individuals who were involved in the AirBit Club scheme that fleeced unsuspecting victims of $20 million. Operators of the crypto Ponzi scheme ran false advertisements that promised users hyperbolic rewards from Bitcoin trading and mining.

However, the DoJ at the time alleged that the group only sought to live flamboyant lifestyles of victims’ funds. While spending money on luxury homes and cars, they reportedly made more moves to recruit more victims across the U.S and different other countries.

A statement from the DoJ document reads:

“The extradition of Dos Santos reflects the determination of agents from HSI New York’s El Dorado Financial Crimes Task Force to dismantle global criminal organizations, wherever the investigation takes us. Utilizing our broad authorities and network of law enforcement partners, HSI will continue to hunt those who allegedly prey upon innocent citizens for financial gain.”

Also, if Dos Santos is found guilty of the charges levied against him, the AirtBit Club co-founder could face between 20-30 years in prison.

Law Enforcement Fighting Crypto Crimes

Regulatory authorities globally continue to warn investors about fake crypto-related schemes that promise high returns. According to a recent report by CryptoPotato, Chinese authorities confiscated $4 billion worth of crypto tokens from PlusToken scammers.

PlusToken, which is one of the biggest cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes, promised users high returns, similar to other crypto fraudulent projects. The Chinese law enforcement began investigating the project after it shut down in 2019. In July, the police arrested 27 key members of the scam project, along with 82 other members.

Another major fraudulent crypto scheme, OneCoin, reportedly stole $4 billion from investors with its founder Ruja Ignatova also known as “Crypto Queen,” still at large. Meanwhile, Ruja’s brother Konstantin Ignatov has been arrested by the U.S. authorities since 2019 and could face a 90-year prison sentence.

SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/u-s-doj-extradites-key-member-of-crypto-ponzi-scheme-from-panama/

Continue Reading
Blockchain5 days ago

South Korean crypto market records more trades in Altcoins

Blockchain8 hours ago

Greenheart Punt World Debut on DigiFinex

Blockchain3 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain4 days ago

Latin American Bitcoin & Blockchain Conference Reveals Latest Speakers

Blockchain3 days ago

EOS Finds Support above $2.80, Resumes Upside Momentum

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

ECB Lays out ‘Reinvention of Money’ Strategy

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC/USD Resumes Upside Momentum, Struggles to Break Above $18,000 Price Level

Blockchain3 days ago

Litecoin Price Prediction: LTC/USD Ready to Revisit $80; Further Upside is Limited

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain3 days ago

Ripple price prediction: XRP to hit $0.67 next, analyst

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC/USD Back Above $17,500 Level as the King Coin Recovers

Blockchain3 days ago

Guggenheim Fund Files to Be Able to Invest Up to Almost $500M in Bitcoin Through GBTC

Blockchain5 days ago

Bitcoin Worth $3B from PlusToken Ponzi Scam Seized by Chinese Authorities

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Guggenheim opens door to bitcoin exposure for $5 billion macro fund via Grayscale GBTC product

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin Climbs 5%, Why $18.2K Holds The Key For More Upsides

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain2 days ago

Coinbase unwilling to participate in Spark’s airdrop

Blockchain5 days ago

Digital Euro: German finance minister urges ECB to accelerate its CBDC development

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Ethereum Strengthens Polish City’s Emergency Services

Blockchain3 days ago

Trading 212, PayPal Crypto User Ban, BTC and ETH Tank: Editor’s Pick

Blockchain3 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain3 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain3 days ago

Guggenheim Partners may be the next big player to bet on Bitcoin

Blockchain3 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain3 days ago

Guggenheim Partners prepares to dip investment fund’s toes into Bitcoin

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin (BTC) Surges 5% Above $18,000 As Guggenheim’s Entry Sparks Excitement

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin Grows By 5%, $18K Level Holds The Key For More Upsides

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Trending