Virtual currency law in the United States

United States virtual currency law is the area of that applies to the buyers, sellers, and users of virtual currency. This regulatory structure consist of and transparency regulations between and the individuals and with whom they conduct business.


The regulatory and market environment

The (I.R.S) describes Virtual Currencies (VC)s as “a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value [and] does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.” Although, electronic payment systems have been part of American life since at least 1871 when “introduced money transfer” through the telegraph and in 1914 “introduced the first consumer charge-card,” virtual currencies differ from these digital payment structures because unlike traditional digital transfers of value, virtual currencies do not represent a claim on value; rather the virtual currency are the value.

The (NACHA), through the (ACH) “moves almost $39 trillion and 22 billion electronic financial transactions each year. These electronic transfers of money through the ACH Network represent a claim to physical legal tender. Alternatively, “unlike electronic money, a VC, particularly in its decentralised variant, does not represent a claim on the issuer.” Electronic payment networks, such as the ACH, have decreased the costs and time required to transfer value and increased reliability and transparency. However, traditional electronic payment networks, even with transnational networks and satellite communications, differ from a virtual currency. For example, the Bitcoin exchange Coinbase charges only 1% on all Bitcoin exchanges to legal tender. Compare this to “2%-4% for traditional online payment systems, like PayPal and credit card companies, or a global average of 7.49% for remittance sent through major remittance corridors. The lower costs of transferring value is a great incentive to both users and merchants. Faster transaction speed is also an advantage of using VC.

Some experts predict various types of VCs will continue to increase, and the demand for the financial system to adopt methods of accepting these currencies will continue to grow. In 2011, Simon Edwards, the Director of Corporate Affairs at , sent a letter to the asking, “whether the domestic payments infrastructure could be modified or adjusted in some way to facilitate and manage the exchange of value beyond traditional currencies.” The online sale of goods and services in the United States accounted for an annual total of $283,009,000,000 transactions from the start of 3rd quarter 2013 to the end of 2nd quarter 2014 (adjusted for seasonal variation). VCs are increasing as a percentage of these transactions. The Bitcoin exchange company Coinbase offers a payment service that allows merchants to receive Bitcoin and then automatically exchange the Bitcoin into fiat currency. The speed of this exchange helps merchants to avoid the volatility of Bitcoin. In September 2014, announced that its payment processor will be accepting Bitcoin. As of November 2014, the market capitalization of Bitcoin is just below five billion U.S. dollars, but has reached historic highs close to fourteen billion dollars. The growth of Internet use and the virtual world is also increasing. World Internet use increased from 15.8% in 2005 to 38.1% in 2013.

This Internet growth is characterized by a consumer demand for a decentralized Internet experience that is not limited or dependent on traditional institutions and governments. This movement aims to create an Internet based on the idea of Virtual, Distributed Parallel (VDP) States, “acting as a kind of organizational counterpoint to that State’s governing bodies.” and other virtual currencies are the VDP movements’ currency alternative to traditional currency and traditional financial institutions.

Monetary policy

The current amount of VC use in the global market is unlikely to significantly affect the Federal Reserve’s ability to conduct monetary policy; however, if the size of the VC market were to grow larger it may affect monetary policy. Even with the impact VC could have on monetary policy, the Reserve does not have the authority to supervise or regulate VC. According to May 9, 2014 meeting of the Federal Advisory Council and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the VC “Bitcoin does not present a threat to economic activity by disrupting traditional channels of commerce; rather, it could serve as a boon. Its global transmissibility opens new markets to merchants and service providers” and “capital flows from the developed to the developing world should increase.” In the Treasury Department’s 2009 Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, the Treasury claimed that the dollar will continue to be a major reserve currency “as long as the United States maintains sound macroeconomic policies and deep, liquid, and open financial markets.”

According to the former Chief Technology Officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, Gus Hunt, the “Government’s going to learn from Bitcoin, and all the official government currencies are going to become crypto currencies themselves.” Under 12 U.S. Code § 411, the Federal Reserve has the authority to issue Federal Reserve notes, and under 12 U.S.C.A. § 418, the Treasury Department “in order to furnish suitable notes for circulation . . . shall cause plates and dies to be engraved” and print numbered quantities. The Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to “mint and issue coins.” However, it is uncertain if this authority includes the authority to “mint” electronic coins for a government-backed crypto-currency protocol. According to David Adolfatto, Senior Vice President, Director of Research, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “the most important aspect of this technology revolution is, in my view, the threat of entry into the money and payment system and what I think it will do is to force traditional institutions, including central banks, to either adapt or die.”

Tax regulations

The IRS treats VC as property and requires for gains or losses upon an exchange of VC to be calculated. Tax Foundation, a tax policy research organization, claims that the IRS got it wrong by categorizing VC as property because the required record keeping creates compliance obstacles, and by categorizing VC as property, the IRS is ignoring how VC is used and treating it as something that people hold for an investment. The pseudonymity of VC accounts allow users to hide funds and evade taxes. Similar to receiving cash, merchants may not report the earnings to the IRS if the merchant believes the IRS will not be able to account for the transaction. The IRS may be able to audit a VC exchange the merchant uses, but if the merchant is using a personal VC account or using multiple exchanges the IRS may not be able to track these transactions.

Illegal activities with virtual currency

FinCEN regulations

In 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a Guidance paper that stated exchanges and administrators of VC are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and must register as a Money Services Business (MSB). The purpose of this legislation was to prevent financial exchanges from being used to launder money or finance crime, including terrorism. The European Central Bank has also recommended registering exchanges to “reduce the incentive for terrorists, criminals and money launderers to make use of these virtual currency schemes for illegal purposes.” In spite of the BSA applying to VC exchanges and administrators, VC is still used to finance crime and launder money because not every transaction in VC networks are required to comply with the BSA and not every online exchange complies with the BSA. In September 2014, Robert M. Faiella, a/k/a “BTCKing,” pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed exchange that exchanged over a million in cash for Bitcoin, used for criminal enterprise and known as “Silk Road.” In spite of the BSA regulations, Faiella and the users of his exchange, were able to hide their identity through both pseudonymous Bitcoin addresses and an anonymous network that hid their I.P. addresses.

On May 9, 2019, FinCEN released a comprehensive restatement of previous guidance on virtual currency under FinCEN’s FIN-2019-G001 Issued Date May 09, 2019 Guidance Subject Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual Currencies.

Money laundering

The culture of laundering money in the Bitcoin network is so prevalent there is even a website called The company claims they are “experts at laundering Bitcoin” and they “use the most sophisticated methods available to completely anonymize your Bitcoins and obscure their history from forensic tracing.” The Government Accountability Office reported that the pseudonymity in VCs makes it difficult for the government to detect money laundering and other financial crimes, and it may be necessary to rely on international cooperation to address these crimes. Similarly, the European Banking Authority, claimed that regulations should strive for “global, coordination, otherwise it will be difficult to achieve a successful regulatory regime.” Dark Wallet anonymously combines transfers of VC to obscure the origin of the transfer, and the developers intend to integrate the software into a Tor network in the future. One of the developers of Dark Wallet described it as “just money laundering software.” He said, “I want a private means for black market transactions,” “whether they’re for non-prescribed medical inhalers, MDMA for drug enthusiasts, or weapons.” A crypto-currency known as Darkcoin offers even more anonymity than Bitcoin. Similar to Dark Wallet, Darkcoin combines transactions to increase the difficulty of analyzing where the currency was sent. “Some users may be trading Bitcoins for Darkcoins and back again, using the Darkcoin network as a giant bitcoin-laundering service.” Other forms of VC have also been used for making illegal transactions. The VC service and exchange Liberty Reserve allegedly laundered over 6 billions dollars from crimes such as “credit card fraud, identity theft, investment fraud, computer hacking, child pornography, and narcotics trafficking.” E-gold, a company with a VC tied to the value of gold, pleaded guilty to money laundering and running an unlicensed money transmitting business, and consequently had to forfeit $45,816,817.84 to the government.

Transactions on Tor

On November 2014, the FBI, “as part of an coordinated international law enforcement action,” seized dozens of “dark markets,” including operating on the anonymous . These markets accepted payment in Bitcoins or similar crypto-currencies, and operated both domestically and internationally. Although the FBI was successful in cracking through the anonymous and discovering the origin of the illegal Bitcoin markets Silkroad I and II and similar illegal markets, the methods the FBI used may not be legal or available, in every case, under the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. October 2014, the court decided the fate of the defendant regarding his role in the first Silkroad, but the court refused to decide whether his were violated because he never pleaded that he had a right to privacy in the server that was searched. The Court claimed that the defendant did not plead a violation of his 4th amendment rights because either “he in fact has no personal privacy interest in the Icelandic server, or because he has made a tactical decision not to reveal that he does.” because the Tor software explicitly states “Tor can’t solve all anonymity problems.” Under , the defendant had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the content of his email; however, unlike an email, an IP address is generally visible to everyone on the Internet, The FBI claimed they found the Silkroad’s IP address by “typing in miscellaneous entries into the username, password, and CAPTCHA fields contained in the interface” to find an IP address associated with an application misconfigured to the Tor network.

Securities fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) treats securities crimes committed with Bitcoin and VCs as money, and it is likely that anti-gambling regulations will be enforced with the same reasoning. On July 2013, was charged by the Commission for “defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin” that amounted to over 700,000 Bitcoin or “$4.5 million based on the average price of Bitcoin in 2011 and 2012 when the investments were offered and sold.” Shavers implemented the scheme through Bitcoin Savings and Trust (BTCST), “an unincorporated online investment scheme” that was not registered with the Commission. “The collective loss to BTCST investors who suffered net losses (there were also net winners) was 265,678 bitcoins, or more than $149 million at current exchange rates” from September 2014. David S. Cohen, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury Department, stated that VCs pose “clear risks to consumers and investors” because the “anonymity and transaction irrevocability [of VCs] expose[s] them to fraud and theft, [a]nd unlike FDIC insured banks and credit unions that guarantee the safety of deposits, there are no such safeguards provided to virtual wallets.” The result of this weak regulatory environment makes VCs acceptable to price volatility, market manipulation, money laundering, fraud, and illegal transactions. On August 11, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a consumer advisory warning on VC and began accepting complaints on VC products and services. In 2006, the United States enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), yet the poker companies continued to operate until the 2011 indictment. Similar to the 2011 indictment, the Justice Department may be collecting evidence and building a case against the Bitcoin gambling sites before they launch an indictment. The UIGEA does not expressly prohibit Internet gambling, but it does make it illegal for an online gambling business to knowingly accept fund transfers. The Bitcoin gambling sites are currently circumventing this legislation by keeping their funds in bitcoin cryptocurrency wallets. However, in order for these sites to exchange their Bitcoins for a fiat currency they must use a financial exchange, so even by receiving their earnings with Bitcoin, the online gambling sites may come into jurisdiction of the UIGEA if the gambling business accepts payment through “(i) automated clearing house (ACH) systems, (ii) card systems, (iii) check collection systems, (iv) money transmitting businesses, and (v) wire transfer systems.” The Illegal Gambling Business Act may also prohibit Bitcoin gambling sites because the act broadly prohibits all gambling businesses that are in (i) “violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;(ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.” Under IRS regulations Bitcoin and other VCs are treated as property, so losses and gains must be calculated to determine the value of the virtual currency. If an online gambling business earned the value of at least $2,000 dollars in Bitcoin “in any single day”, they may fall under this act. The Federal Wire Act (Wire Act) prohibits “bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest.” Some Bitcoin gambling sites have a mixture of betting on sports and traditional casino games, and it is conceivable the bets on sporting events could fall within the language of the Wire Act. The Wire Act expressly mentions “money or credit as a result of bets or wagers,” and VCs may fall under the intent of the Wire Act because they operate as credits that can be redeemed or exchanged at VC exchanges, and they operate like money because they facilitate transactions.

Some online wagers do not fit under the typical definition of gambling or a game of chance. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission refers to these as “Event Contracts.” On December 2011, the CFTC ordered an online business to cease listing Political Events Contracts (i.e. betting on who will be elected) for trade, as it is contrary to the public interest. The CFTC’s jurisdiction is being tested by online businesses that accept virtual currency for event contracts. A website, accepting Bitcoin and other VCs, called lists trades such as trying to call who will be elected, whether a celebrity will have a boy or girl child, or who will be the winner of a science competition.

Nevada law

In Nevada v. Micon, a defendant was charged under Nevada law for operating an unlicensed casino that accepted Bitcoin.

Electronic Fund Transfer Act

VCs lack many of the regulations and consumer protections that legal tender currencies have. Under U.S. law, a cardholder of a credit card is protected from liability in excess of $50 if the card was used for an unauthorized transaction.

(EFTA) was written to protect consumers in transfers through automated teller machines, point-of-sale terminal, ACH systems, remote transfers, and remittance transfers.113 However, the EFTA does not apply to VCs, and due to the nature of many VCs, it may not be possible for VCs to be in complete compliance with the Act. For example, the regulations require for a consumer to be allowed thirty minutes to cancel an electronic transfer. Many VCs, such as Bitcoin, do not allow chargebacks, so cancelling the Bitcoin transfer is not possible. Additionally, a credit card that transacts in VC is not protected by the fifty-dollar maximum liability for the holder of the credit card.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The does not insure VCs; however, a GBCC (Government Backed Cryptocurrency) opens the possibility for GBCCs held in a FDIC approved bank, to be insured by the FDIC. A GBCC may also permit traditional financial institutions to use fractional reserve banking to lend the GBCC with interest.

Federal Election Commission

In a May 2014 Advisory Opinion, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) decided that Bitcoin donations are permitted under FEC laws. This decision will permit microdonations, and it may encourage more people to donate to campaigns. The decision may also encourage more people to attempt to hide their political donations behind the pseudonymity of Bitcoin.

The power to prohibit virtual currencies

Congress may have the power to prohibit VCs under its power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” and under its exclusive constitutional power “to coin Money” and “regulate the Value thereof.” Although the defendant did not pass the Liberty Dollars currency as a counterfeit, the currency were in close enough “resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries” and consequentially fell under the authority of 18 U.S.C.A. § 486.123 The Court has not decided if § 486 includes the power to prohibit VCs, but if a Court decides that the purpose and intent of VC resembles United States or foreign currency it may fall under § 486. The Stamp Payment Act of 1862 prohibits anyone from “mak[ing], issu[ing], circulat[ing], or pay[ing] out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1, intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States.” The Court has not decided if Congress has the power to prohibit VCs under this Act or any other existing regulation or statute.

See Also on BitcoinWiki