James Farrell

Crypto lawyer, but not your lawyer. Former AscendEX/ Paxful/SEC / Tweets are mine, not legal advice, etc.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi Storm was not convicted because his exceptional lawyers did not follow the advice of a DJ. The facts were incredibly damning.

Like other mixers (Bitcoin Fog, Helix etc), if you want to make millions running businesses like adults, you need to follow adult rules.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi That corrupt jury of his peers that listened to the evidence for weeks, deliberated for a week, and unanimously determined that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated 1960.

How dare that jury "abuse [their] positions."

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi Storm is not being held liable for the actions of others.

He chose to operate a business involved in the transmission of funds.

That choice created obligations on how he then had to run that business.

He chose not to comply with those obligations.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi If you choose to run a business involved in money transmission, you cannot knowingly facilitate the flow of illicit funds, funds to terrorists, or to sanctioned parties.

Same way if you manufacture guns you can only sell them to an FFL.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi If the gun store owner in say Arizona sells a gun to someone knowing (or deliberately ignorant) that the user is going to commit a felony like murder, then yes the gun store owner committed a crime.

https://t.co/gw12Qa70XX

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@ImperiumPaper The divorce & bankruptcy is the same issue - just slower moving.

Divorce & bankruptcy might actually be harder bc a protocol could always screen/blacklist wallets (a la Tornado Cash), but the divorce/bankruptcy wallets will look non problematic at joining so won't help

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi If my "website" was not a MT business I was operating (ie I did not hold myself out as transmitting $ on behalf of the public), you'd still be guilty but I would not be.

See how that works.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi 1960 criminalizes operating a business involved in money transmission and knowingly facilitating the flow of illicit funds.

So if my "website" was me operating a MT business (like Western Union) and I facilitated your ML, you'd be guilty under 1956/57 and I'd be under 1960.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Krev2323 @rstormsf @XBToshi Ummm ... When you are convicted by a jury of knowingly facilitating money laundering under 1960, thats zero defense. The conviction is based on how they ran their business (their actions) & customer with "no expectations of regulating their commerce" irrelevant.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@lex_node Probably truncated Ookie too much. Purpose of alt service - to give notice - accomplished there. DAO got notice. Chose not to respond. Effectively collapses steps 2&3.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@lex_node Its really a placeholder to let a case go forward vs. rewarding defs for playing hide & seek (plaintiffs had to try & fail at trad methods first).

If defs show up (like Ooki), issue resolved.

No one shows, default J, & defs can later set aside for lack of notice.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@BenHorney If it has been securities, would trader have been in cuffs w/in a week bc blue sheet data?
Yes.

Did PM which doesn't do KYC provide any actionable assistance? SDNY & CFTC give credit to CEX that did KYC & radio silent on PM.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@BenHorney Depends on what the "system" is. Was the unusual trading publicized by online people (not the PM) almost instantaneously bc of the transparent nature of the chain (and much faster than stock trading)?

100%.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@mirbognik @BrianQuintenz You made a factual statement: "the alleged "anonymous" users with large stakes who always vote together are UMA employees" and fault Bloomberg for not having done research of this "fact."

Now you are admitting you also do not know the identity of these walker holders.

Got it.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@mirbognik @BrianQuintenz Can you please provide the names of the holders of those 9 wallets and the onchain attribution for each of those wallets to that employee? That would provide a lot more clarity around these decisions.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@JBSDC @jnthnvctr Do you think that having 2 free agents (Cassidy & Cornyn) w/ no desire to see Trump win any legislative victories now makes the hill harder to climb to get 60?

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Marcus_cald @EvanLuthra No buyers are being charged.

Reading is fundamental.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@Marcus_cald @JacobRobinsonJD @amandatums @jchervinsky @BirdnalsLAW Do you mean "but for controlling the domain and user access point (where approximately 96% of users accessed Tornado Cash through the developer-maintained UI)" the illicit funds pouring through that channel would not have been laundered"?
OFC not an element of 1960 so irrelevant

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@JacobRobinsonJD @Marcus_cald @amandatums @jchervinsky @BirdnalsLAW Only difference is argument that "custody" is an implied element of 1960. Under that theory, Harmon decision right and RS decision wrong.

But no court has bought that argument because of purposivist reasoning.

[James Farrell @Farrell1969]

@JacobRobinsonJD @Marcus_cald @amandatums @jchervinsky @BirdnalsLAW Both cases indictments under 1960(b)(1)(C) (as well as (b) for both & also (a) for Harmon).

Both courts denied MTDs on 1960(b)(1)(C).

Jury convicted RS; Harmon pled out after losing his pre-trial motions.