5 ms·

He resides in Colorado according to his Linkedin. I don't know a whole lot about crypto - is there anyway he can meaningfully use the donation given the Tornado

by jmt_ 4y ago

He resides in Colorado according to his Linkedin. I don't know a whole lot about crypto - is there anyway he can meaningfully use the donation given the Tornado Cash sanctions? Could just simply being in possession of Tornado Cash Ether give rise to legal problems for him even if he doesn't touch it? Even though it's quite a generous sum amount of money, can't help but wonder if it was sent with ill intentions or if the sender simply lives in a different country and didn't think about the US sanctions

renewiltord 4y ago
No. If he doesn't touch it, he's fine. Everyone has been dusted by Tornado Cash tainted ETH so it's unlikely they'll go after him.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Not sure why you are bring downvoted as it is pretty close to Treasury recent FAQ[1] on dusting: "OFAC is aware of reports following the designation of Tornado Cash that certain U.S. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other virtual assets from Tornado Cash, a practice commonly referred to as “dusting.” Technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions. To the extent, however, these “dusting” transactions have no other sanctions nexus besides Tornado Cash, OFAC will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such U.S. persons. For guidance related to filing an initial and annual report of blocked property, please see FAQs 49, 50, and 646, respectively, and 31 C.F.R. § 501.603. Please note that the annual filing requirement for 2022 applies only to persons holding blocked property as of June 30 of this year. Released on 09/13/2022 " The individuals that got ETH may have some reporting requirements, but OFAC seems to understand it is an effort to make enforcement complicated by design. [1]https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/added/2022-09-13 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
  - treis 4y ago
    $400,000 worth of eth isn't "nominal" though.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      Yeah and that is why I think they may end up having to report it to OFAC anyway and keep submitting annual updates. As always, at this amount, I would consider asking a specialized attorney ( although, ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, they had their hands full ).
    - kube-system 4y ago
      The treasury is using "nominal" to describe what the word "dusting" means... it is when someone sends small amounts of sanctioned crypto to a bunch of accounts. This is from an FAQ article that confirms: yes, even small amounts are in violation of sanction laws. If a $5 transaction breaks the law, then $400,000 also does.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I think they are being downvoted because "not touching it" is not the end of the required action. It is the first step toward getting in compliance. The FAQ is saying "don't freak out, here are some forms to fill out to start straightening out this mess" I think.
- chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
  It's already been touched, the funds were moved shortly after being received
  - jmt_ 4y ago
    If he reports all relevant transactions involving this Ether to OFAC, will he avoid legal repercussions? I noticed a commenter on Twitter brought up the Tornado Cash issue so I wonder if he didn't know before he moved it, because why else would he move sanctioned crypto. Even though OFAC decided to not enforce "nominal" transactions, ~$400k worth of Ether is certainly not nominal so I would guess he needs to cover his ass ASAP.
kube-system 4y ago
(edit: If the money is from Tornado Cash), the money is sanctioned, he has to block it from being used anywhere and he must report it within 10 days according to the law (although the treasury realizes that many people receiving this money don't have legal compliance on staff and so they're cutting people slack) > U.S. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency [...] from Tornado Cash, [...] Technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions. > Once a U.S. person determines that they hold virtual currency that is required to be blocked pursuant to OFAC's regulations, the U.S. person must deny all parties access to that virtual currency, ensure that they comply with OFAC regulations related to the holding and reporting of blocked assets, and implement controls that align with a risk-based approach. > 31 C.F.R. Parts §§501.603 and 501.604 require blocking and reject reports to be submitted to OFAC within 10 business days > A report of blocked property is to be submitted annually by September 30 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/1078 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... The only thing that was donated here is a legal compliance headache that will continue for years to come.
- ram4jesus 4y ago
  I was thinking if I was receiving this Donation, the amount of stress and anxiety it would cost me in the aggregate would surpass any kind of monetary benefit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  I appreciate OFAC being reasonable; it’d be nice if they used Chainalysis to track the digital asset movement and give folks a way to tag their wallet with AML/KYC info for automated compliance purposes. These are public ledgers after all, the reporting does itself for the most part. Can you send the asset to an OFAC address for seizure and custody to wipe your hands of the issue?
  - hgsgm 4y ago
colesantiago 4y ago
Absolutely not. Once he touches this laundered ETH, he’ll face a whole host of legal issues. I’m assuming that the IRS and all the other relevant authorities already know about this and are ready to pounce on Redox once they touch that Tornado ETH. It is worth just sending that tainted ETH to a dead wallet to avoid all that trouble.
- speed_spread 4y ago
  Could it be staked out so at least money can be derived from the "interests"?
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Definitely, IRS is a force to reckon with.

by jmt_ 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

No. If he doesn't touch it, he's fine. Everyone has been dusted by Tornado Cash tainted ETH so it's unlikely they'll go after him.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Not sure why you are bring downvoted as it is pretty close to Treasury recent FAQ[1] on dusting: "OFAC is aware of reports following the designation of Tornado Cash that certain U.S. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other virtual assets from Tornado Cash, a practice commonly referred to as “dusting.” Technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions. To the extent, however, these “dusting” transactions have no other sanctions nexus besides Tornado Cash, OFAC will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such U.S. persons. For guidance related to filing an initial and annual report of blocked property, please see FAQs 49, 50, and 646, respectively, and 31 C.F.R. § 501.603. Please note that the annual filing requirement for 2022 applies only to persons holding blocked property as of June 30 of this year. Released on 09/13/2022 " The individuals that got ETH may have some reporting requirements, but OFAC seems to understand it is an effort to make enforcement complicated by design. [1]https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/added/2022-09-13 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
- treis 4y ago
  $400,000 worth of eth isn't "nominal" though.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Yeah and that is why I think they may end up having to report it to OFAC anyway and keep submitting annual updates. As always, at this amount, I would consider asking a specialized attorney ( although, ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, they had their hands full ).
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The treasury is using "nominal" to describe what the word "dusting" means... it is when someone sends small amounts of sanctioned crypto to a bunch of accounts. This is from an FAQ article that confirms: yes, even small amounts are in violation of sanction laws. If a $5 transaction breaks the law, then $400,000 also does.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think they are being downvoted because "not touching it" is not the end of the required action. It is the first step toward getting in compliance. The FAQ is saying "don't freak out, here are some forms to fill out to start straightening out this mess" I think.
chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
It's already been touched, the funds were moved shortly after being received
- jmt_ 4y ago
  If he reports all relevant transactions involving this Ether to OFAC, will he avoid legal repercussions? I noticed a commenter on Twitter brought up the Tornado Cash issue so I wonder if he didn't know before he moved it, because why else would he move sanctioned crypto. Even though OFAC decided to not enforce "nominal" transactions, ~$400k worth of Ether is certainly not nominal so I would guess he needs to cover his ass ASAP.

kube-system 4y ago

(edit: If the money is from Tornado Cash), the money is sanctioned, he has to block it from being used anywhere and he must report it within 10 days according to the law (although the treasury realizes that many people receiving this money don't have legal compliance on staff and so they're cutting people slack) > U.S. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency [...] from Tornado Cash, [...] Technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions. > Once a U.S. person determines that they hold virtual currency that is required to be blocked pursuant to OFAC's regulations, the U.S. person must deny all parties access to that virtual currency, ensure that they comply with OFAC regulations related to the holding and reporting of blocked assets, and implement controls that align with a risk-based approach. > 31 C.F.R. Parts §§501.603 and 501.604 require blocking and reject reports to be submitted to OFAC within 10 business days > A report of blocked property is to be submitted annually by September 30 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/1078 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... The only thing that was donated here is a legal compliance headache that will continue for years to come.

ram4jesus 4y ago
I was thinking if I was receiving this Donation, the amount of stress and anxiety it would cost me in the aggregate would surpass any kind of monetary benefit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 4y ago
I appreciate OFAC being reasonable; it’d be nice if they used Chainalysis to track the digital asset movement and give folks a way to tag their wallet with AML/KYC info for automated compliance purposes. These are public ledgers after all, the reporting does itself for the most part. Can you send the asset to an OFAC address for seizure and custody to wipe your hands of the issue?
- hgsgm 4y ago

colesantiago 4y ago

Absolutely not. Once he touches this laundered ETH, he’ll face a whole host of legal issues. I’m assuming that the IRS and all the other relevant authorities already know about this and are ready to pounce on Redox once they touch that Tornado ETH. It is worth just sending that tainted ETH to a dead wallet to avoid all that trouble.

speed_spread 4y ago
Could it be staked out so at least money can be derived from the "interests"?
systemvoltage 4y ago
Definitely, IRS is a force to reckon with.