Crypto Swords and Shields: Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Strategies for Crypto Exchanges
Crypto exchanges can use the unique features of blockchain technologies to their own ends, including developing effective countermeasures to detect and thwart crypto laundering schemes.
March 09, 2022 at 12:30 PM
7 minute read
Crypto exchanges have become a tool of choice for would-be crypto "money" launderers. In late January, the AI analytics firm Chainalysis estimated that "cybercriminals have laundered over $33 billion worth of cryptocurrency since 2017, with most of the total over time moving to centralized exchanges." Chainalysis, DeFi Takes on Bigger Role in Money Laundering But Small Group of Centralized Services Still Dominate (Jan. 26, 2022). The outsized role of crypto exchanges in crypto laundering was recently highlighted in the DOJ's spectacular announcement that it had seized 94,636 Bitcoin (BTC), at the time worth approximately $4.18 billion, and charged a Manhattan couple with conspiring to launder the stolen BTC through various crypto exchanges. U.S. Department of Justice, Two Arrested for Alleged Conspiracy To Launder $4.5 Billion in Stolen Cryptocurrency (Feb. 8, 2022). Crypto has long been seen as particularly susceptible to money laundering activities due to its anonymity and independence from traditional cash routes and their attendant regulations. As alleged in the DOJ's complaint and the accompanying statement of facts, the couple deployed various "sophisticated laundering techniques," including using multiple false identities, opening multiple accounts, and depositing crypto at multiple exchanges on multiple blockchains to break up the fund flow and conceal the transaction history. U.S. v. Lichtenstein, Case No. 22-mj-22 (RMM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2022); Statement of Facts (Dkt. No. 1-1). But crypto exchanges can use the unique features of blockchain technologies to their own ends, including developing effective countermeasures to detect and thwart crypto laundering schemes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCommon Law Liability at Construction Sites and the 'Launching a Force' Test
22 minute read'We Are Becoming Scapegoats': One Year Post-SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure Updates and Impacting Rulings
A New Era of Influence: A Swift Take on Branding, Computer-Generated Influencers and Deepfakes
9 minute readChallenges to Noncompete Ban Already Hitting Courts, Setting Up Showdown Over FTC's Powers
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250