undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprvit3y ago0 comments

In this case the donor would merely be a sanctions violator, while tornado.cash is sanctioned. So the money isn't coming directly from a sanctioned entity.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

from3y ago· 2 in thread

I was reading and I think 18 USC 1957 may be a problem.

> Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

The withdrawal from Tornado Cash after the sanctions were imposed is the specified unlawful activity (IEEPA violation).

Even if the withdrawal itself was legal (the person who withdrew the money was not a US person), the government could argue that he should have known the funds could have came from some crime, i.e:

> In a prosecution for an offense under this section, the Government is not required to prove the defendant knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was specified unlawful activity.

prvitOP3y ago

> Even if the withdrawal itself was legal (the person who withdrew the money was not a US person), the government could argue that he should have known the funds could have came from some crime, i.e:

I think you’re misreading that. The Government has to prove that the defendant knew that the property was criminally derived, but the government does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the list of specific unlawful activities.

from3y ago

You’re right I misread that. I still think an overzealous prosecutor could find some violation, especially if p2p exchanges are used. They have charged people with operating an unlicensed money transmitter for merely being a customer of an unlicensed money transmitter!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse