From an email received:
Under this rulemaking, we seek to ensure that a foreign-located entity engaging
in activities in the United States in one of the capacities listed in 31 CFR
103.11(uu)(1)–(5) is regulated as an MSB. We are concerned that mechanisms such
as the Internet increasingly can be used to conduct business within the United
States from a foreign jurisdiction. Use of such mechanisms may avoid both our
regulations and the regulations of the foreign jurisdiction.
The BSA authorizes FinCEN to define a domestic financial institution without
reference to its physical presence in the United States. The term ”domestic
financial institution” applies to an action in the United States, not to the
physical location of the financial agency or institution taking the action.
The proposed revisions would state that an entity is defined as an MSB by the
activity it conducts within the United States, and not exclusively by physical
presence. The term ”money services business” would include a person, wherever
located, engaged in the activities that take place wholly or in substantial part
within the United States.
The term ”money services business” would include a person, wherever located,
engaged in the activities that take place wholly or in substantial part within
the United States. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent,
agency, branch, or office within the United States.
Technological advances, said the Agency, make it increasingly possible for MSBs
to offer financial services through mechanisms other than ”brick and mortar”
locations. Foreign entities can and do offer services in the U.S. through other
means, such as the Internet or a U.S.-based bank account. The proposed changes
would ensure that a foreign-located entity engaging in activities in the United
States would be regulated as an MSB.
If a foreign-located business is an MSB according to the regulations, then it
would have the same reporting, recordkeeping, and other requirements as an MSB
with a physical presence in the United States.
FinCEN said it also wants to ensure that the AML regulations apply equally to
all persons engaging in activities in the United States as MSBs. The U.S. system
is not fully protected when some MSB transactions are covered and others are
not. The Agency said it was concerned that the Internet can increasingly be used
to conduct business within the United States from a foreign jurisdiction.
Such registration would include every e-currency (and exchanger) who has a US client.
A reply to that email
don' think this has much to do with DGC's. It is an extra benefit to
the US masters, but has little to do with an attack directly at DGCs.
The DGC market is tiny, and always has been.
This is an act of financial war directed at every single financial
institution worldwide that does business with any US citizen.
DGC aspect, millions (if you count e-gold holdings).
Non-DGC aspect, trillions.
It is in effect Currency Controls. As a massive number of global
institutions will refuse to do business with US sourced money or
Those that do cooperate will be complete lapdogs of the US Fed, and they
will not be so concerned as they can know and will be controlling what
is going on with this money outside the US. And of course anyone seeking
'offshore' benefits will no longer be dealing 'offshore' when the
'offshore' entity is a full fledged US domestic financial institution.
It is also an act of Financial Protectionism. Rather than declaring
worldwide financial institutions as illegal for americans to participate
in OR threatening non-us financial institutions with a war machine, this
route takes care of the same objective: US dollars for US financial
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The international community should respond by declaring all financial
institutions in the USA to be domestic in their respective
jurisdictions. Thus effectively shutting down all financial services in
the USA to the foreign market.
One wonders about the future ..