Limits of anti money laundering laws (Binance)

masonic

Cryto_AL said:

DannyCarey said:

The exchange are just stealing your money at this point. 
When you load money into an exchange they put your money as an asset on their side (and a liability). 

You actually surrender your money the moment you put it in an exchange. 

They are a bit like an unregulated bookie - very very happy to take your money but they will make it as awkward as possible to withdraw money especially if you are a new user. 

Its legally a trust agreement, you do not surrender anything. As such and as crypto is classed as private property not currency. Any refusal to return the property or seizure of it would surly be a criminal act of conversion.
The problme is regulators and comapanie try to treat crypto as currency one mintue so they can use finacial and tax law against us, then teh next mintue they treat it like private property so they dont have to help us when we get scammed. Saying its a civil matter.

Binance T&Cs appear to be governed by Hong Kong law and disputes are resolved by arbitration by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The terms state that "You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your Binance Account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the Digital Assets or funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if Binance suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification of your Binance Account, or suspension or termination of your access to all or any portion of Binance Services. Binance shall reserve the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such Binance Accounts."

So while you may be correct that you could report the assets as stolen, I'm not sure how likely it is the directors of Binance would be extradited from the Cayman Islands or wherever in the world they currently reside, to face trial.

Much simpler not to leave assets in their custody to begin with.

Type_45

masonic said:

Cryto_AL said:

DannyCarey said:

The exchange are just stealing your money at this point. 
When you load money into an exchange they put your money as an asset on their side (and a liability). 

You actually surrender your money the moment you put it in an exchange. 

They are a bit like an unregulated bookie - very very happy to take your money but they will make it as awkward as possible to withdraw money especially if you are a new user. 

Its legally a trust agreement, you do not surrender anything. As such and as crypto is classed as private property not currency. Any refusal to return the property or seizure of it would surly be a criminal act of conversion.
The problme is regulators and comapanie try to treat crypto as currency one mintue so they can use finacial and tax law against us, then teh next mintue they treat it like private property so they dont have to help us when we get scammed. Saying its a civil matter.

Binance T&Cs appear to be governed by Hong Kong law and disputes are resolved by arbitration by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The terms state that "You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your Binance Account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the Digital Assets or funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if Binance suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification of your Binance Account, or suspension or termination of your access to all or any portion of Binance Services. Binance shall reserve the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such Binance Accounts."

So while you may be correct that you could report the assets as stolen, I'm not sure how likely it is the directors of Binance would be extradited from the Cayman Islands or wherever in the world they currently reside, to face trial.

Much simpler not to leave assets in their custody to begin with.

I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

Aren't Eurodollars supposed to be based there?  In reality none are actually there.

eskbanker

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

masonic

Type_45 said:

masonic said:

Cryto_AL said:

DannyCarey said:

The exchange are just stealing your money at this point. 
When you load money into an exchange they put your money as an asset on their side (and a liability). 

You actually surrender your money the moment you put it in an exchange. 

They are a bit like an unregulated bookie - very very happy to take your money but they will make it as awkward as possible to withdraw money especially if you are a new user. 

Its legally a trust agreement, you do not surrender anything. As such and as crypto is classed as private property not currency. Any refusal to return the property or seizure of it would surly be a criminal act of conversion.
The problme is regulators and comapanie try to treat crypto as currency one mintue so they can use finacial and tax law against us, then teh next mintue they treat it like private property so they dont have to help us when we get scammed. Saying its a civil matter.

Binance T&Cs appear to be governed by Hong Kong law and disputes are resolved by arbitration by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The terms state that "You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your Binance Account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the Digital Assets or funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if Binance suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification of your Binance Account, or suspension or termination of your access to all or any portion of Binance Services. Binance shall reserve the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such Binance Accounts."

So while you may be correct that you could report the assets as stolen, I'm not sure how likely it is the directors of Binance would be extradited from the Cayman Islands or wherever in the world they currently reside, to face trial.

Much simpler not to leave assets in their custody to begin with.

I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

Aren't Eurodollars supposed to be based there?  In reality none are actually there.

It certainly gets confusing pinning down jurisdication when you ask a company registered in the Cayman Islands, operating under Hong Kong law, with CEO who at last report was living in Singapore "temporarily", to look after your unregulated digital assets, which only exist on a decentralised ledger.

k_man

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

While not necessarily relevent here (as pointed out above, most data protection legislation allows data to be used to meet legal requirements) but for accuracy, data protection laws relating to individuals apply based on the individual, not the location of the company.

e.g. GDPR* applies in any country, if the data relates to an individual that is an EU citizen (which is why a number of websites initially blocked access from the EU after GDPR was introduced)

*more accurately DPA 2018 for UK citizens, but no one quotes that breaches DPA 2018

masonic

k_man said:

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

While not necessarily relevent here (as pointed out above, most data protection legislation allows data to be used to meet legal requirements) but for accuracy, data protection laws relating to individuals apply based on the individual, not the location of the company.

e.g. GDPR* applies in any country, if the data relates to an individual that is an EU citizen (which is why a number of websites initially blocked access from the EU after GDPR was introduced)

*more accurately DPA 2018 for UK citizens, but no one quotes that breaches DPA 2018

GDPR was quite unusual in that regard though, and the ability to wield that power internationally comes from the EU having such a huge market and the willingness and teeth to take on even the very largest corporations. Similarly, the US gets away with imposing financial reporting requirements on companies all over the world for its citizens. However, in most cases, national governments don't attempt to enforce legislation outside of their own jurisdiction. In regulated sectors they might require a local entity to be set up to deal with its citizens, but clearly that isn't applicable to crypto. I don't think DPA 2018 is enforced against foreign companies processing data relating to UK citizens. The ICO does have an international engagement team which works with other regulators in the EEA and commonwealth, including the Cayman Islands, but this will be high level cooperation, not looking into a case where someone feels they are being asked for too much information to prove they aren't money laundering.

k_man

masonic said:

k_man said:

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

While not necessarily relevent here (as pointed out above, most data protection legislation allows data to be used to meet legal requirements) but for accuracy, data protection laws relating to individuals apply based on the individual, not the location of the company.

e.g. GDPR* applies in any country, if the data relates to an individual that is an EU citizen (which is why a number of websites initially blocked access from the EU after GDPR was introduced)

*more accurately DPA 2018 for UK citizens, but no one quotes that breaches DPA 2018

GDPR was quite unusual in that regard though, and the ability to wield that power internationally comes from the EU having such a huge market and the willingness and teeth to take on even the very largest corporations. Similarly, the US gets away with imposing financial reporting requirements on companies all over the world for its citizens. However, in most cases, national governments don't attempt to enforce legislation outside of their own jurisdiction. In regulated sectors they might require a local entity to be set up to deal with its citizens, but clearly that isn't applicable to crypto. I don't think DPA 2018 is enforced against foreign companies processing data relating to UK citizens. The ICO does have an international engagement team which works with other regulators in the EEA and commonwealth, including the Cayman Islands, but this will be high level cooperation, not looking into a case where someone feels they are being asked for too much information to prove they aren't money laundering.

I did mean to add, that applicable doesn't mean enforced.
The key (irrelevant here) point remains though, that just because it is a foreign country, doesn't mean UK laws aren't applicable (albeit may not be enforced) and in data protection laws the legal jurisdiction is usually that of the affected citizen.

Cryto_AL

Why did you leave money/crypto on an exchange?  Even rookies know not to do this (although I'm sure many do).

What percentage of your crypto is stuck on the exchange?

Because it was in an order. Why else would it be on an exchange?

Cryto_AL

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

Indeed and the juristiction is the UK and they are regulated by the FCA.
too many people here seem to think this is the wild west and crypto comapnies can do whatever they want.
they cant, they are still covered by regs and UCC law.

Type_45

Cryto_AL said:

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:
I don't think much of anything is physically in places like the Cayman Islands.  It's a legal thing.

It's one thing to airily dismiss that as "a legal thing" but when it comes to a discussion about, er, the law (as it pertains to AML and data protection), then the applicable legal jurisdiction is actually rather important....

Indeed and the juristiction is the UK and they are regulated by the FCA.
too many people here seem to think this is the wild west and crypto comapnies can do whatever they want.
they cant, they are still covered by regs and UCC law.

What's the problem then?