The points made by David Moskowitz in his article have certainly provided some food for thought, and I do not disagree with him entirely. He made a couple of salient and good points. I do not disagree that a Bitcoin industry in Singapore would be beneficial for the local economy. In fact, the MAS statement on Bitcoin usage has put us on the world map and shown how we can lead the way in how Bitcoins are treated under the law.
However, I must disagree with two points that he has made; principally, his suggestion that money laundering is not a problem and secondly, that we should “allow the free market to work”.
However, that aside, I take the view that Bitcoins is the perfect instrument for money laundering. Having worked in INTERPOL’s Office of Legal Affairs, I have had the humbling opportunity to have a first-hand view of money laundering operations worldwide. Lets start with a simple definition of money laundering as offered by the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Money laundering is defined as knowingly engaging in a financial transaction with the proceeds of a crime for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property from governments.
There are so many ways of laundering money and Bitcoin’s features. While Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous and they are public, the identity of the user remains unknown until information is revealed under some circumstances. While cash is still definitely the best way to launder money, the possibility of unauthorized mining and theft of Bitcoin opens the door – albeit a small one – to the possibility of money laundering.
It was suggested that money laundering happens on a big scale and the small transactions and trade volume of Bitcoin does not allow this. Respectfully, this is contrary to criminal practice. The best way to launder money is through small transactions and trade volume. Period. The whole point of engaging in money laundering is to avoid detection and suspicion. The best way of doing it is to do it in small inconspicuous amounts; especially through shell entities. Criminals generally engage in the “Place-Layer-Integrate” modus operandi. First, a criminal will ‘place’ the money in the existing financial system, next to ‘layer’ it by removing the illegal taint, and then to ‘integrate’ it by mixing it with the legal funds.
A couple of examples are as follows:
You open a cash account with a knowing stockbroker. Make a few trades. Doesn’t matter whether you win or lose on that trade. Cut your losses / coup your gains and get out of the position. You do this in small amounts otherwise other big legitimate traders will get suspicious.
You are rich enough to get a banking licence. You buy or create a bank. The bank ‘lends’ you some money. You ‘pay back’ the loan to the bank which will circulate the money into the legal financial system.
How would this work with Bitcoin? Using the above examples:
You open a Bitcoin wallet and trade on an unregulated Bitcoin exchange (that you probably own through some entity). You then make transactions using Bitcoin and take out your illicit gains in cash. You bypass the entire financial system entirely!
You are rich enough to buy or create a Bitcoin exchange and you cater it for criminals or use it exclusively for your money laundering operations – why not since you don’t have to report to any central regulator.
Clearly the examples above are pretty unsophisticated but you get my point. Bitcoin is attractive as a money laundering instrument because you remove the need for “placing”.
A ‘free market’ does not necessarily mean an unregulated market
Although I am not intending to delve into deeper issues of the pros and cons of free market and capitalism, one just has to look at the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis in the USA for anecdotal evidence as to why a free market is no guarantee that it will work themselves out. The market for credit default swaps and derivatives was unregulated in the US and participants drove it off the cliff in the name of profit. In other words, it is self-serving truism for participants to call themselves the best regulators for the industry they are in.
At the same time, I do not advocate an unrestrained approached towards regulation. I am a firm believer in a light-touch approach to regulation in order to protect self-evident public interests such as safeguards against abuse and crimes. However, what is not obvious to many is that in order for regulators to implement safeguards against the same, Bitcoin may have to be treated as a form of currency. If the government does that, it is tantamount to declaring Bitcoin as illegal but according to the Currency Act, the only legal tender is the Singapore dollar.
The MAS Statement is only a temporary stop-gap measure
In my view, the statement issued by MAS relating to Bitcoin is simply a stop-gap measure as authorities take a wait-and-see-approach. The fact that MAS is not interfering in the use of Bitcoin is nothing novel from a legal perspective – MAS simply views this as a form of good exchanged in a barter trade. That is what a virtual currency is in the eyes of the law – just a form of good. There are other legal repercussions in having this virtual currency treated as a form of good but that is a story for another time.
As the industry and adoption grows, the threats will be clearer and the government will act accordingly. They have to and they have been doing so i.e. wait-and-see-before-acting approach.
I think it would be a big mistake for investors and Bitcoin enthusiast to treat the statement from MAS as an endorsement (silent or positive) and bet their future (or investment) on this (temporary) position.
The views are of the author and e27 may not necessarily subscribe to them
e27 invites members from Asia’s tech industry and startup community to share their honest opinions and expert knowledge with our readers. If you are interested to share your point of view, please send us an email to writers[at]e27[dot]co