Why are the feds seizing Mt. Gox and Dwolla funds?

Published On May 15, 2013 at 18:37 BST | By | government and regulation
Money Symbols

So exactly what is in that court order that the US Department of Homeland Security used this week to clamp down on Dwolla-Mt. Gox transactions? It appears the feds have decided there’s reason to believe Mt. Gox and a subsidiary are operating as unlicensed money transmitting businesses in violation of US law.

Ars Technica obtained a copy of the seizure warrant issued in US District Court in Maryland and signed by US Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey.

The seven-page warrant cites an affidavit made by a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) stating there is probable cause to believe the contents of a specific Dwolla account are subject to seizure and forfeiture under US law. The warrant also reveals some of the background details leading up to Tuesday’s halt to Dwolla-Mt. Gox transactions, including the use of a confidential informant who engaged in bitcoin trading over a period of six months.

“Out of respect for the sensitivity of the issue and the two parties’ legal responsibilities, we’ve been encouraging all interested parties to clarify or gather additional information from Mt. Gox and Homeland Security, this includes affected users,” a Dwolla spokesperson reached for comment responded in an email Wednesday.

In the affidavit included in the federal warrant, the HSI agent refers to two applicable statutes of the law:

  • 18 USC section 1960, which states, “Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
  • 18 USC section 981, which says the following properties are subject to forfeiture: “Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property.”

The warrant signed by Judge Gauvey describes Mt. Gox — the world’s largest bitcoin exchange — and a subsidiary company  called Mutum Sigillum LLC. Mutum Sigillum, the warrant states, holds an account at Wells Fargo Bank that was established on May 20, 2011, and signed by one person: Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles, also identified as the owner of both Mt. Gox and Mutum Sigillum.

In the paperwork to open that bank account, Karpeles allegedly stipulated that Mutum Sigillum was a business “not engaged in money services.”

The warrant then notes that “neither Mt. Gox nor the subsidiary, Mutum Sigillum LLC, is registered as a Money Service Business.” Such registration with FinCEN — the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network — is required for money transmitting businesses under US law.

A Maryland-based confidential informant — referred to in the warrant as CI-1 — told government agents he established new  accounts with both Mt. Gox and Dwolla. The informant stated he deposited US funds in his Mt. Gox account, then used Dwolla to exchange those funds for bitcoins. He later used Mt. Gox to exchange the bitcoins back into US dollars, which were credited to his Dwolla account.

“According to bank records, this transfer was completed through the subsidiary, Mutum Sigillum LLC,” the warrant states. “This demonstrates that Mutum Sigillum LLC is engaged in a money transmitting business but is not registered as required with FinCEN.”

Bank records showed that “a number of deposits” to Mutum Sigillum’s Wells Fargo account were made via international wire transfers from Japan’s Sumitomo Mitsui Bank in the name of Mt. Gox. Afterward, those funds were “frequently disbursed to Dwolla.” Because Mutum Sigillum transferred those funds without FinCEN registration as a money transmitting business, the contents of its Wells Fargo account “were subject to seizure and forfeiture,” the warrant states.

A seizure warrant for the Wells Fargo account was issued on May 9, 2013.

The seizure warrant issued on Tuesday, May 14, was for a Dwolla account registered in the name of Mutum Sigillum and held in the custody of Veridian Credit Union. That Dwolla account was “the destination for the funds wired from the Wells Fargo account,” the latest warrant states. Records indicate the Wells Fargo account was the only one funding the Dwolla account.

“Therefore, it is evident that the Dwolla account was used exclusively to move funds between Mt. Gox and Mutum Sigillum and their customers,” the warrant states. “Consequently, there is probable cause to believe that Mt. Gox and Mutum Sigillum are using (the Dwolla account) to conduct transactions as part of an unlicensed money service business … ”

No monetary amounts were stipulated in the warrant.

An “unlicensed money transmitting business” is defined as a business that affects interstate or foreign commerce and operating without an appropriate license to transfer funds “on behalf of the public”.

According to the Dwolla spokesperson, Dwolla users have been sent the following message:

“In summary: The Department of Homeland Security and US District Court for the District of Maryland issued a ‘Seizure Warrant’ for the funds associated with Mutum Sigillium’s Dwolla account (aka Mt. Gox). In light of the court order, procured by the Department of Homeland Security, 1.) Dwolla has ceased all account activities associated with Dwolla services for Mutum Sigillum while 2.) Dwolla’s holding partner transferred Mutum Sigillium’s balance to the proper authorities.

“Dwolla requires a court order before honoring requests such as seizing funds or revoking access to an account.”

dwollalaw

  • http://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn AnonyÓðinn

    Based on a quick read of this article and a close read of the order itself, it looks like FinCen wants organizations like MtGox to register with FinCen if bitcoin is involved. This is no surprise based on the FinCen guidance released not so long ago, but I don’t think that FinCen has turned that guidance into a ruling, so I sense that no-one running a business which touched bitcoin felt particularly bound by it. The federal government is going to have to adopt clear statements in the form of rules since that is how it operates if it wants businesses like MtGox to have to register with FinCen when they are interacting with bitcoin. Orders that suspend Dwolla and MtGox are simply attacks on the system of transaction that are likely politically motivated, rather than addressing the issue in a reasonable way.

    • http://twitter.com/Robert34278510 Robert

      The goverment doesn’t want clarity. It wants FUD Fear, Uncertainty, Disinformation to keep other forms of currency under its thumb. It will go the way of prohibition in the 1920s…

  • Luke Parker

    So if US Funds were not moved from MtGox to Dwolla, then there would be no problem at all?

    • http://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn AnonyÓðinn

      Basically… or you could avoid MtGox and Dwolla temporarily while this is being straightened out. It kind of looks like what they would need to do to straighten it out in the case of MtGox and that subsidiary, Mutum Sigillum, would be simply to contact the FinCen and register with them. (Not you as a user of bitcoin, but rather, those two companies would need to do that.) Again, though, it is unclear why FinCen didn’t just send a letter asking them to do so if they felt it was a compliance issue. That is where my sense is that this is a politically motivated order – because someone in the DHS is frustrated that bitcoin exists, that they can’t beat the decentralized model, etc. You know the story. So instead of just sending out a friendly letter, they threw the whole can of DHS juice at them. Probably this will be straightened out in a week. But I am guessing that a lot of Congresspeople are going to be hearing from pissed off bitcoin participants who have been unnecessarily affected by this. #DefundTheDHS

  • Illutian Kade

    What sucks is FinCEN defines a MSB-operation as anytime you use ‘Realize’ bitcoins. Which means anytime you use Bitcoins to purchase a real product (US Dollar or an item).

    So all you miners. You can trade Bitcoins with each other as much as you want. But as soon as you use them to buy something…..you’re screwed.

    Duncha just love the Government…. -_-’

    Source: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001.pdf
    “However, it held that American entities who generate “virtual currency” such as bitcoins are money transmitters or MSBs if they sell their generated currency for national currency: “…a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter.”

    See that “Equivalent”. A NORMAL person would say, “Illutian, they mean other currencies.” Yes. But this is legal talk. It means totally different things ‘now’. It means they can say “Well, this product you bought with bitcoins is valued at $50 USD. Therefore, you exchanged bitcoins for $50 USD.” -Welcome to the Land of Legality.

    Hopefully becoming a MSB isn’t too much of a hassle….

    • http://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn AnonyÓðinn

      No, Illutian Kade, that is not correct. Firstly, the FinCen guidance is a guidance, and not a rule. There has yet been no rulemaking. Second, in the Decentralized Virtual Currencies section of the guidance, which applies to bitcoin, it makes it clear that the USG has a divided approach to how it interprets ordinary users of bitcoin:

      “A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter.

      By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter.

      In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer
      of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.”

      This guidance of March 18 was obviously a shot off the bow at bitcoin, but it is impossible to actually regulate those who create units of bitcoin and sell them to another person for real currency as individuals – because there are too many of us as individuals. It is possible to regulate those who do so as a business, which is why the DHS went after Mt Gox and its subsdiary company.

      http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001.pdf

      The real danger to bitcoin is not that businesses will have to get licensed, it’s that in order to for money transmitting businesses to get licensed with FinCen they have to go to all 50 states, making it impossible for all but the very biggest business models. Perhaps a larger danger to bitcoin is that someone will keep trying to put illegal material in the blockchain and the federal government will then try to come up with that as an excuse to order a halt to a slew of bitcoin transactions (all the more reason to argue against the ID-based proposals we have heard at the recent #Bitcoin2013 – if all there is is a bitcoin address and / or an IP that law enforcement can obtain at the most, there is ultimately no serious concern for the larger network, but demanding that everybody certify IDs prior to engaging in transactions will not only detract from anonymity, but will compromise people’s ability to avoid the inevitable abuse and attacks on the system by government and law enforcement). Finally, another danger to bitcoin is the approach by coders to make changes straight to github without consulting the user base, such as the recent microtransaction stir in which a decision was made to close out microtransactions on the block chain. If the user base is not included in major changes and allowed to vote ahead of time on proposals before they are incorporated into the bitcoin system, trust that has been built thus far by the community will be lost.