Connect with us

Published

on

As the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pushes forward with its proposal to increase cryptocurrency surveillance, a past report might offer a clue for how this information may be used in practice. In short, with the IRS set to keep tabs on Americans’ cryptocurrency usage through an expected 8 billion new returns, it seems the Department of Justice (DOJ) may soon have the tools it wants to start confiscating cryptocurrency at an unprecedented rate. 

The issue stems from a 2022 report written by the DOJ in response to Executive Order 14067. For those who might not remember, Executive Order 14067 was President Biden’s first major cryptocurrency initiative. Although many people initially feared an impending crackdown was coming, the executive order largely delayed making sweeping changes by first calling on agencies to issue reports to inform future policies around cryptocurrency and related issues. 

The report, written by the DOJ, covered a vast range of topics. Largely falling into four categories, the recommendations spanned ways to aid prosecutions, ways to improve investigations, ways to expand penalties for cryptocurrency-related crimes, and ways to increase the resources available for government employees.

Related: Bitcoin beyond 35K for Christmas? Thank Jerome Powell if it happens

What’s most interesting for the present conversation, however, is where the DOJ argued for increasing its ability to seize cryptocurrency.

For example, the report states that “it is critical that the United States have the authority to forfeit the proceeds of cryptocurrency fraud and manipulation as a means of deterring such activity and divesting violators of their ill-gotten gains.” Therefore, the DOJ recommends expanding its authority over criminal, civil, and administrative forfeiture.

The DOJ has claimed these updates are necessary because the department’s experience with cryptocurrency-related cases has “revealed limits on the forfeiture tools used to deprive wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains and, in certain cases, restore funds to victims.”

Yet this argument is difficult to understand considering how much and how often the government has been able to seize cryptocurrency over the years. In fact, the report itself mentions such cases. Between 2014 and 2022, the FBI seized around $427 million in cryptocurrency. The IRS seized another $3.8 billion between 2018-21.

With more than $4 billion on hand, the DOJ’s argument that the U.S. government is struggling to seize cryptocurrency is just not as apparent as the report’s recommendations make it out to be.

Related: IRS proposes unprecedented data-collection on crypto users

Still, the IRS’s broker proposal puts the DOJ’s report into a new light given the vast surveillance that the proposal would likely create — vast surveillance that could be used to start confiscating cryptocurrency at an even greater rate.

The problem is what’s referred to as administrative forfeiture. As Nick Sibilla explained in Forbes when the report first came out, “Under ‘administrative’ or ‘nonjudicial’ forfeiture, the seizing agency — not a judge — decides whether a property should be forfeited.” In other words, agencies do not need to prove to a judge that a crime was committed in order to seize the property.

The DOJ commended this process for promoting an “efficient allocation of government resources” while discouraging “undue burdens on the federal judicial system.” In fact, this process seems to be the DOJ’s preferred practice given that administrative forfeitures made up 78 percent of its forfeitures between 2000 and 2019.

Department of Justice forfeitures by category, 2009-19. Source: Institute for Justice

With the IRS collecting vast amounts of new information on Americans’ cryptocurrency use, it’s possible that the DOJ may “suddenly” find vast new arenas for cryptocurrency confiscation. And again, it’s important to stress that these confiscations don’t have to start with an actual crime being committed—just the mere suspicion.

Given how often misunderstandings surrounding cryptocurrency have fueled headlines, it’s not difficult to imagine how such suspicions could emerge. For example, it was less than a month ago that more than 100 members of Congress cited a flawed report to call for a crackdown on cryptocurrency.

Considering the IRS proposal in this light helps to showcase one of the major risks of mass data collection. Whether it’s the DOJ seeking to expand its confiscation activities, the IRS looking to increase audits, or a hacker seeking out an exploit, massive government databases create tempting targets for both internal and external abuse.

If the IRS pushes forward with its proposal, cryptocurrency users should keep a careful eye on how that data is ultimately used by the government at large.

Nicholas Anthony is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives. He is the author of The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s Attack on Crypto: Questioning the Rationale for the Cryptocurrency Provisions and The Right to Financial Privacy: Crafting a Better Framework for Financial Privacy in the Digital Age.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

PM could lift controversial benefit cap in budget – as Farage makes two big election promises

Published

on

By

PM could lift controversial benefit cap in budget - as Farage makes two big election promises

Sir Keir Starmer could decide to lift the two-child benefit cap in the autumn budget, amid further pressure from Nigel Farage to appeal to traditional Labour voters.

The Reform leader will use a speech this week to commit his party to scrapping the two-child cap, as well as reinstating winter fuel payments in full.

The prime minister – who took Westminster by surprise at PMQs by revealing his intention to row back on the winter fuel cut – has previously said he would like to lift the two-child cap if the government could afford it.

There are now mounting suggestions an easing of the controversial benefit restriction may be unveiled when the chancellor delivers the budget later this year.

According to The Observer, Sir Keir told cabinet ministers he wanted to axe the measure – and asked the Treasury to look for ways to fund the move.

It comes after the government delayed the release of its child poverty strategy, which is expected to recommend the divisive cap – introduced by former Tory chancellor George Osborne – is scrapped.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why did Labour delay their child poverty strategy?

Ministers have already said any changes to winter fuel payments, triggered by mounting political pressure, would only be made when the government’s next fiscal event rolls round.

The Financial Times reported it may be done by restoring the benefit to all pensioners, with the cash needed being clawed back from the wealthy through the tax system.

The payment was taken from more than 10 million pensioners this winter after it became means-tested, and its unpopularity was a big factor in Labour’s battering at recent elections.

Before Wednesday’s PMQs, the prime minister and chancellor had insisted there would be no U-turn.

More from Sky News:
PM’s winter fuel claim ‘not credible’
Starmer vs Reeves – the ‘rift’ in Downing Street

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will winter fuel U-turn happen?

Many Labour MPs have called for the government to do more to help the poorest in society, amid mounting concern over the impact of wider benefit reforms.

Former prime minister Gordon Brown this week told Sky News the two-child cap was “pretty discriminatory” and could be scrapped by raising money through a tax on the gambling industry.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Brown questioned over winter fuel U-turn

Mr Farage, who believes Reform UK can win the next election, will this week accuse Sir Keir of being “out of touch with working people”.

In a speech first reported by The Sunday Telegraph, he is expected to say: “It’s going to be these very same working people that will vote Reform at the next election and kick Labour out of government.”

Continue Reading

Politics

First renationalised train service starts today – but not how you’d have hoped…

Published

on

By

First renationalised train service starts today - but not how you'd have hoped…

South Western Railway (SWR) has been renationalised this weekend as part of the government’s transition towards Great British Railways.

The train operator officially came under public ownership at around 2am on Sunday – and the first journey, the 5.36am from Woking, was partly a rail replacement bus service due to engineering works.

So what difference will renationalisation make to passengers and will journeys be cheaper?

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

What is nationalisation?

Nationalisation means the government taking control of industries or companies, taking them from private to public ownership.

Britain’s railway lines are currently run by train operating companies as franchises under fixed-term contracts, but Labour have said they want to take control of the lines when those fixed terms end.

In its manifesto, the party vowed to return rail journeys to public ownership within five years by establishing Great British Railways (GBR) to run both the network tracks and trains.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said renationalising SWR was “a watershed moment in our work to return the railways to the service of passengers”.

“But I know that most users of the railway don’t spend much time thinking about who runs the trains – they just want them to work,” she added. “That’s why operators will have to meet rigorous performance standards and earn the right to be called Great British Railways.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How reliable are UK trains?

How will ticket prices be affected?

Labour have argued cutting off payments flowing into the private sector could save the taxpayer £150m a year.

But the government has not explicitly promised the savings made from nationalisation will be used to subsidise fees.

It is unlikely rail fares will fall as a result of nationalisation, rail analyst William Barter told Sky News.

“The government could mandate fare cuts if it wanted to, but there’s no sign it wants to,” he said.

“At the moment, I’m sure they would want to keep the money rather than give it back to passengers. The current operator aims to maximise revenue, and there’s no reason the government would want them to do anything differently under government control.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK has most expensive train tickets in Europe

What difference will it make for passengers?

Britain’s railways are frequently plagued by delays, cuts to services and timetable issues, but Mr Barter said nationalisation will make very little day-to-day difference to passengers.

There was “no reason to think” the move would improve issues around delays and cancellation of services, he said.

“It’s going to be the same people, the same management,” he explained.

“The facts of what the operator has to deal with in terms of revenue, infrastructure, reliability, all the rest of it – they haven’t changed.”

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

Which services are being next to be nationalised?

In the longer term, the move is likely to bring “a degree of certainty compared with relatively short-term franchises”, Mr Barter said, noting the government would only want to renationalise a franchise “because in one way or another something very bad is going on in that franchise, so in a way it can only get better”.

It also means the government will have greater accountability for fixing problems with punctuality and cancellations.

Mr Barter said: “If this is the government’s baby, then they’re going to do their best to make sure it doesn’t fail. So rather than having a franchise holder they can use as a political scapegoat, it’s theirs now.”

He added: “In the short term, I don’t think you’d expect to see any sort of change. Long term, you’ll see stability and integration bringing about gradual benefits. There’s not a silver bullet of that sort here.”

Next to be renationalised later this year will be c2c and Greater Anglia, while seven more companies will transfer over when their franchises end in the future.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sir Alan Bates attacks ‘kangaroo court’ Post Office scheme after ‘take it or leave it’ offer

Published

on

By

Sir Alan Bates attacks 'kangaroo court' Post Office scheme after 'take it or leave it' offer

Sir Alan Bates has accused the government of presiding over a “quasi kangaroo court” for Post Office compensation.

Writing in The Sunday Times, the campaigner, who led a years-long effort for justice for sub-postmasters, revealed he had been given a “take it or leave it” offer that was less than half of his original claim.

“The sub-postmaster compensation schemes have been turned into quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses,” he said.

“Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.”

More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon accounting software made it look as if money was missing from their accounts.

Many are still waiting for compensation despite the previous government saying those who had their convictions quashed were eligible for £600,000 payouts.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘It still gives me nightmares’

After the Post Office terminated his contract over a false shortfall in 2003, Sir Alan began seeking out other sub-postmasters and eventually took the Post Office to court.

More on Post Office Scandal

A group litigation order (GLO) scheme was set up to achieve redress for 555 claimants who took the Post Office to the High Court between 2017 and 2019.

Sir Alan, who was portrayed by actor Toby Jones in ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, has called for an independent body to be created to deliver compensation.

He added that promises the compensation schemes would be “non-legalistic” had turned out to be “worthless”.

It is understood around 80% of postmasters in Sir Alan’s group have accepted a full and final redress, or been paid most of their offer.

Read more:
Post Office scandal explained

Who are the key figures in the scandal?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Lives were destroyed’

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson told Sky News: “We pay tribute to all the postmasters who’ve suffered from this scandal, including Sir Alan for his tireless campaign for justice, and we have quadrupled the total amount paid to postmasters since entering government.

“We recognise there will be an absence of evidence given the length of time which has passed, and we therefore aim to give the benefit of the doubt to postmasters as far as possible.

“Anyone unhappy with their offer can have their case reviewed by a panel of experts, which is independent of the government.”

Continue Reading

Trending