比特幣成電子洗錢管道？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/2/14
2014-02-07 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/zcopley/ |
在1月26日舉行的比特幣支持者聚會上，施瑞姆（Charlie Shrem）是特邀講者，但在隔天，施瑞姆便登上了不甚光彩的頭條；施姆瑞遭逮捕，罪名為共謀為非法藥品交易網站絲路（Silk Road）的使用者提供價值100萬美元的虛擬貨幣。絲路創立者烏布萊特（Ross Ulbricht）已遭起訴，警方也將焦點放上了用於交易的匿名貨幣。
施瑞姆遭逮捕震驚了比特幣社群；24歲的施瑞姆一直是比特幣的重要擁護者，眾人也認為他與黑暗面沒有連結。他的比特幣交易所BitInstand擁有文克萊沃斯（Winklevoss）雙胞胎兄弟提供的財務支持，聲稱想出了Facebook的就是這對兄弟。
然而，根據控訴，施瑞姆雖然知道比特幣將轉售給絲路使用者，仍舊親自處理另一名嫌犯法耶拉（Robert Faiella）的訂單，並告訴法耶拉如何規避BitInstant的反洗錢交易限制；合夥人開始懷疑之時，施瑞姆亦隱暪這些訂單。兩人若遭定罪，將面臨最高30年的刑期。
比特幣支持者認為，比特幣的非法用途獲得過多關注，它搖撼付款業務的潛力卻無人過問。監管單位仍舊不確定如何處理比特幣，各國的回應亦不同。芬蘭央行認為它是「數位商品」而非貨幣，德國視之私人貨幣，中國則是打壓虛擬貨幣。
美國監管機構的腳步比較慢。去年，聯邦監理人員曾表示虛擬貨幣交換可能屬於「金錢服務」業務，類似支票兌現或換匯公司。這些企業得遵循洗錢防制規樣，但執照是由州政府發放；因此，州政府監管人員現在也忙著了解電子貨幣。
紐約已成眾人注目的焦點。紐約金融服務局局長勞斯基（Benjamin Lawsky）將於本周舉行比特幣聽證會；他希望建立一套新的虛擬貨幣規範，比特幣支持者則反對此作法，有些人擔心那會限制其潛力，有些人認為那可能會為比特幣的問題業務用途提供正當性。
虛擬貨幣公司預期接下來得忙於符合規範，也已經開始雇用相關專家。勞斯基表示，如果監管單位得在允許洗錢和允許創新之間二擇一，打擊洗錢一定是優先事項。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
Bitcoin
Bitten
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: February 07, 2014
Feb 1st 2014 | NEW YORK | From the print edition
A rough week for the king of crypto-currencies.
CHARLIE SHREM was a featured speaker at a gathering of Bitcoin
enthusiasts in Miami on January 26th. The next day he was making less welcome
headlines, after being arrested and accused of conspiring to provide $1m-worth
of the virtual currency to shoppers on Silk Road, an online marketplace for
illegal drugs. Silk Road was shut down last year. Its alleged founder, Ross
Ulbricht, has since been indicted. Now crimebusters are turning their attention
to the exchanges that allowed customers at such black-market bazaars to trade
traceable old-economy currencies for near-anonymous virtual ones.
Mr Shrem's arrest shocked Bitcoin groupies; the 24-year-old has been one
of the currency's most vocal advocates, and was seen as having no links to its
dark side. His exchange, BitInstant, has financial backing from the Winklevoss
twins, internet entrepreneurs who claim that Facebook was their idea.
According to the complaint, however, Mr Shrem personally processed
orders for Robert Faiella, who faces similar charges, despite knowing the
Bitcoins would be resold to Silk Road users (at a 10% markup); he concealed the
orders from his business partner when the partner grew suspicious; and he
advised Mr Faiella (whose online alias was BTCKing) on how to circumvent
transaction limits imposed by BitInstant's anti-money-laundering policy, even
though it was Mr Shrem's job to enforce these as compliance officer. If
convicted, the two men face up to 30 years in prison.
Bitcoin's fans complain that its illicit uses are attracting too much
attention and its potential to shake up the payments business too little.
Regulators are still not sure what to make of it. Responses differ from country
to country. Finland's central bank views Bitcoin as a "digital
commodity", not a currency. In Germany it is treated as private money.
China has clamped down, restricting banks' use of virtual currencies.
In America regulatory guidance has been slow in coming. Last year
federal regulators did say that virtual-currency exchanges might be considered
"money-service" businesses, akin to cheque-cashing firms or bureaux
de change. These have to comply with know-your-customer and other money-laundering
rules, but are licensed by the states. So state regulators are now scrambling
to understand e-currencies better.
All eyes are on New York, whose superintendent of financial services,
Benjamin Lawsky, held hearings on the issue this week. He wants a new set of
rules—dubbed the "BitLicence"—specifically for virtual currencies.
Bitcoinistas are split on the idea. Some fear that it will strangle a promising
new technology that could help to circumvent the transaction fees charged by
banks. Others believe that it might confer legitimacy on a tainted business.
Anticipating a flurry of red tape, virtual-currency firms are starting
to take on more compliance experts. The new hires will be busy. "If the
choice for regulators is to permit money-laundering on the one hand or to
permit innovation on the other," declared Mr Lawsky, "we are always
going to choose squelching the money-laundering first."
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
