The SDNY literally said that sw is not a money transmitter. If my memory is correct, I believe the judge forbid the lawyers from using that statement in their defense. How can an impartial judge impose a rule like that?
Discussion
FinCEN said they didn't require a license too.
Right. I found the note
If you read the article carefully you'll see that they're not arguing they required a license.
They're just arguing that they conspired to move stolen money.
So by not making it about the license requirements it may have actually worked *against the defense.
How would they even prove it was stolen money? This is so fucking retarded