The Alphabet Soup of Regulators in the Crypto Space Just Added a Few More Letters
OFAC, the Office of Foreign Asset Control, appears to be getting in on the crypto regulatory action. OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.
September 21, 2018 at 03:10 PM
5 minute read
In March 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) entered the “virtual currency” space when it issued guidance on “Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies.” In September 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) defined virtual currencies, such as bitcoin, as “commodities,” under Section 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act. After massive amounts of capital began to be raised from investors for initial coin offerings (ICOs), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) joined the party and issued a “Report of Investigation” involving The DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization. In its report, the SEC concluded that, depending on the facts and circumstances, crypto tokens and coins can be “securities” and subject to regulation under the federal securities laws.
Now, the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) appears to be getting in on the crypto regulatory action. OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.
In March, OFAC announced five “FAQs” related to cryptos. FAQ 559 defined “virtual currency,” “digital currency,” “digital currency wallet,” and “digital currency address.” Notably, the term “digital currency” includes sovereign cryptocurrency, virtual currency (nonfiat), and a digital representation of fiat currency. FAQ 560 clarified that OFAC obligations are the same, regardless of whether the transaction is in digital currency or traditional fiat currency. FAQ 561 puts the world on notice that “OFAC will use sanctions in the fight against criminal and other malicious actors abusing digital currencies and emerging payment systems as a complement to existing tools, including diplomatic outreach and law enforcement authorities.” In FAQ 562, OFAC stated that it may add digital currency addresses to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). FAQ 563 provides how the digital currency address field will be listed on the SDN List—the unique alphanumeric identifiers for the digital currency address and a reference to the digital currency (e.g., bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH), litecoin (LTC), neo (NEO), dash (DASH), ripple (XRP), iota (MIOTA), monero (XMR), and petro (PTR)). Finally, FAQ 594 noted that digital wallet addresses are not currently searchable on OFAC's SDN List search tool.
The SDN List includes individuals and companies owned or controlled by targeted countries and individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotic traffickers. If an individual, company, or digital wallet address appears on the SDN List, their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.
OFAC's enforcement jurisdiction is broad. It does not just apply to banks and other financial institutions. It covers all U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, U.S.-based companies, overseas branches of U.S. companies, and in some cases, overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies (collectively, “U.S. Persons”). U.S. persons who violate OFAC laws and regulations can be criminally prosecuted or assessed civil penalties.
For example, in May, Texas-based Ericsson Inc. and Sweden-based Ericsson, AB (collectively, “Ericsson”), agreed to pay $145,893 for an apparent violation of Sudanese Sanctions Regulations because, based on OFAC's investigation, it appeared Ericsson employees conspired with employees of a Lebanese company to export and re-export a satellite hub and related services from the U.S. to Sudan.
In another example, in September 2017, New York-based Richemont North America Inc., d/b/a Cartier, paid $334,800 for apparent violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations when it exported shipments of jewelry to an entity in Hong Kong listed on OFAC's SDN List.
With OFAC's indication that digital wallet addresses may soon be added to the SDN List, this will add costs and risks for U.S. persons. If U.S. persons deal or transact with digital wallet addresses, they will need to run OFAC checks on the counterparty wallet address, or they risk: (1) being investigated and possibly sanctioned by OFAC; or (2) having their wallet address flagged as being associated with an SDN List entry and, as a result, possibly being added to the SDN List.
Adding digital wallet addresses to the SDN List will be like whack-a-mole. As aptly noted by a business associate, Robert Whitaker, director of forensics and investigations at Blockchain Intelligence Group, “The problem here, as we all know, is that addresses can be generated and cryptocurrency moved around very easily.” So it is unclear how effective adding digital wallet addresses to the SDN List will be to stop transactions with rogue nations, terrorists, and drug traffickers, but the approach is another tool in the government's “whole-of-government strategies to combat global threats.”
The impact on U.S. persons, however, will be significant. Another layer of letters, i.e., regulation, will be added. Business of all types (from banks and crypto exchanges to retailers) and individuals that transact in crypto will need to comply with OFAC laws and regulations. Or else …
And one more thing: you may want to bookmark https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ in case you need to run some OFAC searches.
Robert Long and Ross A. Williams are partners with Bell Nunnally in Dallas.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250