Two
US
lawmakers
have
opposed
the Department
of
Justice’s
(DOJ)
attempt
to
expand
the
definition
of
a
money-transmitting
business.
In
a
May
9
letter
to
US
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland,
Senators
Cynthia
Lummis
and
Ron
Wyden
argued
that
the
DOJ’s
broad
interpretation
could
criminalize
non-custodial
crypto
asset
software
services.
According
to
the
lawmakers:
“The
DOJ’s
unprecedented
interpretation
of
this
statute
in
the
context
of
non-custodial
crypto
asset
software
services
contradicts
the
clear
intent
of
Congress
and
the
authoritative
guidance
of
the
Department
of
the
Treasury’s
Financial
Crimes
Enforcement
Network
(FinCEN).”
DOJ’s
argument
In
April,
the
DOJ
argued
that
the
crypto
mixer
functioned
as
an
unlicensed
money
transmitter
as
its
rebuttal
to
Tornado
Cash’s
developer
Roman
Storm’s
motion
for
dismissal.
In
its
motion,
the
DOJ
argued
that
controlling
funds
was
not
a
prerequisite
for
such
classification.
According
to
the
Justice
Department:
“The
definition
of
‘money
transmitting’
in
Section
1960
does
not
require
the
money
transmitter
to
have
‘control’
of
the
funds
being
transferred.
The
definition
exends
to
‘transferring
funds
on
behalf
of
the
public
by
any
and
all
means.”
Congress
intent
The
lawmakers
believe
that
the
DOJ’s
position
was
wrong
as
Congressional
intent
for
the
law
requires
that
a
company
must
have
“direct
receipt
and
control
of
assets”
to
qualify
as
a
money-transmitting
business.
The
lawmakers
also
cited
the
Bank
Secrecy
Act
and
several
FinCEN
regulations
to
support
their
argument
against
the
DOJ’s
stance.
The
senators
also
stated
:
“Non-custodial
crypto
service
providers
cannot
be
classified
as
money
transmitter
businesses
because
users
of
such
services
retain
sole
possession
and
control
of
their
crypto
assets.”
The
lawmakers
urged
the
DOJ
not
to
divert
“from
the
clear,
logically
sound,
and
well-established
definition
of
“money
transmission”
established
by
FinCEN.”
They
added:
“Subjecting
developers
of
non-custodial
crypto
asset
software
to
potential
criminal
liability
as
unregistered
money
transmitters
contravenes
the
well-established
interpretation
of
this
provision
and
will
only
serve
to
stifle
innovation
and
shake
confidence
in
the
DOJ’s
respect
for
the
rule
of
law.”
Mentioned
in
this
article
Go to Source
Author: Oluwapelumi Adejumo
