Connect with us

Published

on

Trump’s focus on cartels highlights new risks for digital assets

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.

Recent: Crypto crime in 2024 likely exceeded $51B, far higher than reported: Chainalysis

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC’s Peirce says NFT royalties do not make tokens securities

Published

on

By

SEC’s Peirce says NFT royalties do not make tokens securities

SEC’s Peirce says NFT royalties do not make tokens securities

United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce said many non-fungible tokens (NFTs), including those with mechanisms to pay creator royalties, likely fall outside the purview of federal securities laws.

In a recent speech, Peirce said NFTs that allow artists to earn resale revenue do not automatically qualify as securities. Unlike stocks, NFTs are programmable assets that distribute proceeds to developers or artists. The SEC official said that mirrors how streaming platforms compensate musicians and filmmakers. 

“Just as streaming platforms pay royalties to the creator of a song or video each time a user plays it, an NFT can enable artists to benefit from the appreciation in the value of their work after its initial sale,” Peirce said. 

Peirce added that the feature does not provide NFT owners any rights or interest in any business enterprise or profits “traditionally associated with securities.”

SEC never prohibited NFT royalties

Oscar Franklin Tan, chief legal officer of Enjin core contributor Atlas Development Services, told Cointelegraph that the recent remarks by Peirce on NFTs and creator royalties have been widely misunderstood. 

Peirce had clarified that NFTs that send resale royalties to artists are not necessarily securities, a view Tan says is legally sound but mischaracterized in some media reports. 

“So Hester Peirce said that an NFT that sends royalties back to the creator after a sale is not a security. This is correct, but the way some media reported this is completely out of context,” Tan told Cointelegraph. “The actual context is that this is not controversial, and it was never considered a security.”

The lawyer said US securities law focuses on regulating investments and not compensating creators for their work.

“The artist or creator is not an investor, not a passive third party in the NFT,” he said, noting that royalty payments are not considered investment income. 

Instead, Tan told Cointelegraph that this type of earning is “analogous to business income,” which the SEC does not regulate. He added: 

“The SEC never prohibited contracts where artists and creators get royalties from secondary sales of their work, not royalties from paper contracts or blockchain protocols.”

Tan explained that the legal distinction becomes more complicated when NFTs promise shared profits from royalties to multiple holders beyond the original creator. 

Tan also urged regulators and market participants to apply traditional legal reasoning to new blockchain technologies. “Ask yourself, if this were done by pen and paper instead of blockchain, would there still be a regulatory issue?” he said. “If none, slow down.”

SEC’s Peirce says NFT royalties do not make tokens securities
Source: Oscar Franklin Tan

Related: SEC charges Unicoin crypto platform over alleged $100 million fraud

OpenSea calls on the SEC to exempt NFT marketplaces from oversight

While NFT royalties may not have been a controversial SEC issue, NFT marketplaces are a different case. In August 2024, NFT trading platform OpenSea received a Wells notice from the SEC, alleging that NFTs traded on the marketplace could qualify as unregistered securities. 

On Feb. 22, OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer announced that the SEC has officially closed its investigation into the platform. The executive said that this was a win for the industry. 

Following the conclusion of the SEC’s investigation, OpenSea’s lawyers penned a letter to Peirce, who leads the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. OpenSea general counsel Adele Faure and deputy general counsel Laura Brookover said in an April 9 letter that NFT marketplaces don’t qualify as brokers under US securities laws. 

The lawyers said the marketplaces don’t execute transactions or act as intermediaries. The lawyers urged the SEC to “clearly state that NFT marketplaces like OpenSea do not qualify as exchanges under federal securities laws.”

Magazine: NBA star Tristan Thompson misses $32B in Bitcoin by taking $82M contract in cash

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korea tightens crypto rules ahead of institutional market entry

Published

on

By

South Korea tightens crypto rules ahead of institutional market entry

South Korea tightens crypto rules ahead of institutional market entry

South Korea is tightening rules around digital asset transactions as it prepares to allow institutional players into its crypto market, introducing new guidelines for nonprofit crypto sales and stricter listing standards for exchanges.

On May 20, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) of South Korea said during its fourth Virtual Asset Committee meeting that it had finalized sweeping new measures.

Set to take effect in June, the updated rules allow both nonprofit organizations and virtual asset exchanges to sell cryptocurrencies, but under new compliance standards.

Nonprofit entities must have at least five years of audited financial history to be permitted to receive and sell virtual asset donations. They will also need to establish internal Donation Review Committees to assess the appropriateness of each donation and the liquidation strategy.

To reduce risks of money laundering, all donations must be routed through verified Korean won exchange accounts, with verification responsibilities placed on banks, exchanges and the nonprofits themselves.

Furthermore, only cryptocurrencies listed on at least three major domestic exchanges will be eligible, and liquidation is expected to occur immediately upon receipt.

South Korea tightens crypto rules ahead of institutional market entry
Guidelines regarding nonprofits selling crypto donations. Source: FSC

Related: Top South Korean presidential hopefuls support legalizing Bitcoin ETFs

Exchange sales to be restricted

Crypto exchanges will be allowed to liquidate user fees paid in crypto, but only to cover operational costs. Sales will be capped at daily limits, typically no more than 10% of the total planned amount.

Furthermore, sales will only be permitted for the top 20 tokens by market cap across five won-based exchanges. Importantly, exchanges are barred from selling tokens on their own platforms to prevent conflicts of interest.

South Korea is also tightening standards for listing digital assets. The revised rules aim to curb instability from sudden price spikes by requiring a minimum circulating supply before a token is allowed to trade and temporarily restricting market orders post-listing.

So-called zombie tokens (with low volume and thin market caps) and memecoins without clear utility will face more scrutiny. For instance, exchanges must delist tokens if they fail to meet liquidity benchmarks or community engagement thresholds.

Starting in June, exchanges and nonprofits can apply for real-name accounts to facilitate these sales. Later this year, the FSC plans to extend real-name accounts to listed firms and professional investors.

Cointelegraph contacted South Korea’s Digital Asset eXchange Association for comment, but had not received a response by publication.

Related: RedotPay enters South Korea with crypto-powered payment cards

South Korean candidates push pro-crypto agenda

South Korea’s Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has proposed launching a stablecoin pegged to the Korean won, aiming to curb capital flight and bolster the country’s financial autonomy.

Speaking at a recent policy forum, Lee said a won-based stablecoin could help retain domestic wealth and reduce dependence on foreign-backed digital currencies such as USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC).

The initiative is part of Lee’s broader push for digital asset reforms, which also includes legalizing spot crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

His rival, Kim Moon-soo of the ruling People Power Party, has also expressed support for introducing spot crypto ETFs, signaling bipartisan momentum on the issue.

Magazine: NBA star Tristan Thompson misses $32B in Bitcoin by taking $82M contract in cash

Continue Reading

Politics

Rayner tells Reeves she’s wrong

Published

on

By

Rayner tells Reeves she's wrong

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Sky News’ Sam Coates and Politico’s Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics.

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves will have their strategy tested today as Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner sets out her plan for higher taxes, and questions are raised about their approach to Reform. Is becoming Reform-lite the way to go?

And, as the prime minister joins global efforts to put pressure on Israel over Gaza, could more sanctions be next?

Continue Reading

Trending