Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP
Since taking office, the Trump administration has designated several drug and violent cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). US President Donald Trump has also called for the “total elimination” of these cartels and the like. These executive directives are not good developments for the cryptocurrency industry. On their face, these mandates appear focused only on criminal cartels. Make no mistake: These executive actions will cause unforeseen collateral damage to the digital asset community. Crypto actors, including software developers and investors, may very well get caught in the crosshairs of aggressive anti-terrorism prosecutions and follow-on civil lawsuits.
Increased threat of criminal anti-terrorism investigations
The biggest threat stemming from Trump’s executive order on cartels is the Department of Justice (DOJ). Almost immediately after President Trump called for the designation of cartels as terrorists, the DOJ issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to use “the most serious and broad charges,” including anti-terrorism charges, against cartels and transnational criminal organizations.
This is a new and serious development for prosecutors. Now that cartels are designated as terrorist organizations, prosecutors can go beyond the traditional drug and money-laundering statutes and rely on criminal anti-terrorism statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the material-support statute — to investigate cartels and anyone who they believe “knowingly provides material support or resources” to the designated cartels.
Why should the crypto industry be concerned with these developments? Because “material support or resources” is not just limited to providing physical weapons to terrorists. “Material support or resources” is broadly defined as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” Anyone who knowingly provides anything of value to a designated cartel could now conceivably violate § 2339B.
Even though cryptocurrency platforms are not financial institutions and never take custody of users’ assets, aggressive prosecutors may take the hardline view that software developers who design crypto platforms — and those who fund these protocols — are providing “material support or resources” to terrorists and launch harmful investigations against them.
This is not some abstract possibility. The government has already demonstrated a willingness to take this aggressive position against the crypto industry. For example, the DOJ indicted the developers of the blockchain-based software protocol Tornado Cash on money laundering and sanction charges and accused them of operating a large-scale money laundering operation that laundered at least $1 billion in criminal proceeds for cybercriminals, including a sanctioned North Korean hacking group.
Moreover, the government already believes that cartels use cryptocurrency to launder drug proceeds and has brought numerous cases charging individuals for laundering drug proceeds through cryptocurrency on behalf of Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. TRM Labs, a blockchain intelligence company that helps detect crypto crime, has even identified how the Sinaloa drug cartel — a recently designated FTO/SDGT — has used cryptocurrency platforms to launder drug proceeds.
The digital asset community faces real risks here. Putting aside the reputational damage and costs that come from defending criminal anti-terrorism investigations, violations of § 2339B impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years (or life if a death occurred) and monetary penalties. Anti-terrorism statutes also have extraterritorial reach, so crypto companies outside the US are not immune to investigation or prosecution.
Civil anti-terrorism lawsuits will escalate
The designation of cartels as FTOs/SDGTs will also increase the rate at which crypto companies will be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Under the ATA, private citizens, or their representatives, can sue terrorists for their injuries, and anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”
Aggressive plaintiffs’ counsel have already relied on the ATA to sue cryptocurrency companies in court. After Binance and its founder pled guilty to criminal charges in late 2023, US victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel sued Binance and its founder under the ATA, alleging that the defendants knowingly provided a “mechanism for Hamas and other terrorist groups to raise funds and transact illicit business in support of terrorist activities” and that Binance processed nearly $60 million in crypto transactions for these terrorists. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. For now, the district court permits the Ranaan plaintiffs to proceed against Binance with their aiding-and-abetting theory. Crypto companies should expect to see more ATA lawsuits now that drug cartels are on the official terrorist list.
Vigilance is key
Crypto companies may think that Trump’s war against cartels has nothing to do with them. The reality is, however, that the effects of this war will be widespread, and crypto companies may be unwittingly drawn into the crossfire. Now is not the time for the digital asset community to relax internal compliance measures. With anti-terrorism statutes in play, crypto companies must ensure that transactions with all FTOs/SDGTs are identified and blocked, monitor for new terrorist designations, and understand areas of new geographical risks.
Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP.
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.
Lucy Powell has accused Bridget Phillipson’s team of “throwing mud” and briefing against her in the Labour deputy leadership race in a special episode of Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast.
With just days to go until the race is decided, Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby spoke to the two leadership rivals about allegations of leaks, questions of party unity and their political vision.
Ms Powell told Electoral Dysfunction that through the course of the contest, she had “never leaked or briefed”.
But she said of negative stories about her in the media: “I think some of these things have also come from my opponent’s team as well. And I think they need calling out.
“We are two strong women standing in this contest. We’ve both got different things to bring to the job. I’m not going to get into the business of smearing and briefing against Bridget.
“Having us airing our dirty washing, throwing mud – both in this campaign or indeed after this if I get elected as deputy leader – that is not the game that I’m in.”
Ms Powell was responding to a “Labour source” who told the New Statesman last week:“Lucy was sacked from cabinet because she couldn’t be trusted not to brief or leak.”
Ms Powell said she had spoken directly to Ms Phillipson about allegations of briefings “a little bit”.
Image: Bridget Phillipson (l) and Lucy Powell (r) spoke to Sky News’ Beth Rigby in a special Electoral Dysfunction double-header. Pics: Reuters
Phillipson denies leaks
But asked separately if her team had briefed against Ms Powell, Ms Phillipson told Rigby: “Not to my knowledge.”
And Ms Phillipson said she had not spoken “directly” to her opponent about the claims of negative briefings, despite Ms Powell saying the pair had talked about it.
“I don’t know if there’s been any discussion between the teams,” she added.
On the race itself, the education secretary said it would be “destabilising” if Ms Powell is elected, as she is no longer in the cabinet.
“I think there is a risk that comes of airing too much disagreement in public at a time when we need to focus on taking the fight to our opponents.
“I know Lucy would reject that, but I think that is for me a key choice that members are facing.”
She added: “It’s about the principle of having that rule outside of government that risks being the problem. I think I’ll be able to get more done in government.”
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But Ms Powell, who was recently sacked by Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Commons, said she could “provide a stronger, more independent voice”.
“The party is withering on the vine at the same time, and people have got big jobs in government to do.
“Politics is moving really, really fast. Government is very, very slow. And I think having a full-time political deputy leader right now is the political injection we need.”
The result of the contest will be announced on Saturday 25 October.
The deputy leader has the potential to be a powerful and influential figure as the link between members and the parliamentary Labour Party, and will have a key role in election campaigns. They can’t be sacked by Sir Keir as they have their own mandate.
The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner following a row over her tax affairs. She was also the deputy prime minister but this position was filled by David Lammy in a wider cabinet reshuffle.
HMRC sent nearly 65,000 warning letters to crypto investors last year, more than double the previous year, as the UK steps up efforts to trace undeclared capital gains.
The government says it is exploring what “additional resources and support are required” to allow “all fans” to attend Maccabi Tel Aviv’s match against Aston Villa next month.
Supporters of the Israeli side have been told they are not allowed to attend November’s game in Birmingham after a decision by Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG).
The group – made up of local stakeholders, including representatives from the council, police and event organisers – said the decision was due to a high risk of violence based on “current intelligence and previous incidents”.
The decision has been criticised across the political spectrum, with Sir Keir Starmer describing it as a “wrong decision” while Tory opposition leader Kemi Badenoch called it a “national disgrace”.
In a statement on Friday night, a government spokesperson said: “No one should be stopped from watching a football game simply because of who they are.
“The government is working with policing and other partners to do everything in our power to ensure this game can safely go ahead, with all fans present.
“We are exploring what additional resources and support are required so all fans can attend.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:43
Birmingham residents react to the Maccabi fan ban
Meanwhile, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: “Antisemitism is a stain on our society that shames us all. Every football fan, whoever they are, should be able to watch their team in safety.
“This government is doing everything in our power to ensure all fans can safely attend the game.”
The prime minister’s spokesman previously said Sir Keir would “do everything in his power to give Jewish communities the security they deserve”.