"If a person, for example, had the ability to move any and all funds locked by that contract then it may be true that said person accepted those funds and was transmitting them on behalf of whoever put those funds into that contract, i.e. said person was a money transmitter. However, if a person merely had the ability to update certain logic relevant to the contract but insufficient to gain control over the funds and transmit the funds at their discretion then said person would not have what FinCEN in the guidance calls “independent control” over the funds being transmitted and would not therefore be a money transmitter. The indictment does not clearly state the manner of the defendant’s control and therefore does not sufficiently allege unlicensed money transmission."

nostr:nevent1qqszh55qy23xas5u2khqr75pupqz5j5n9lzy02hkk7vdp7lz7xlx99qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsyg9e55m4ywa69lx6aptajrv2wcx7fusnnj0epkvx7aruulgwcrgh85psgqqqqqqs2789ek

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.