California’s commision for fair political practices has updated its campaign disclosure manuals, with revisions including detailed rules for cryptocurrency contributions declarations.
An agenda released for an upcoming commission meeting includes a discussion of updated campaign disclosure manuals, which have been reworked to reflect recent changes in legislation and commission regulations.
These updates include campaign contribution limits, limited liability companies (LLC) disclosure requirements, behested payment reporting, cryptocurrency contributions, excessive contributions, advertising disclosure requirements, and other non-substantive technical changes.
Of specific interest are sections of the manuals that now include guidelines for reporting cryptocurrency contributions.
According to the guidelines, a politicial comittee may solicit a contribution of cryptocurrency as a nonmonetary contribution, which is subject to specific requirements. Cryptocurrency contributions are set to be subject to applicable limits and may not be accepted from foreign principals, lobbyists or anonymous sources.
Committees are also barred from receiving cryptocurrency contributions directly in peer to peer transactions. Cryptocurrency contributions can be received through payment processors that are selected to act as a vendor on behalf of the committee.
A hypothetical situation outlining how a political party would go about disclosing the amount of a cryptocurrency contribution. Source: FPPC campaign manual.
The commission also requires cryptocurrency donations to be made and received through United States based payment processors registered with the U.S. Department of Treasury and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network which uses KYC protocols to verify identities of contributors.
Committees thatopt to solicit contributions made in cryptocurrencies are expected to confirm that respective cryptocurrency payment processors use KYC procedures to verify contributors’ identities.
The payment processors also need to collect the name, address, occupation and employer of respective contributors and share this with committees within 24 hours of a cryptocurrency contribution being made.
Payment processors are also expected to immediately convert cryptocurrency contributions to U.S. dollars upon receipt at current exchange rates and deposit funds into the committee’s campaign bank account within two business days of receipt.
Cryptocurrency contributions are labeled as nonmonetary contributions under the Commission guidelines. Any processing fee paid to the processor is not deducted from the reported amount and the entire contribution is set to be reported by committees as a ‘miscellaneous increase to cash”.
MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.
The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.
The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.
Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.
Image: Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.
“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.
“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.
More on Scotland
Related Topics:
“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”
Not proven verdict
Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.
Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.
Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.
Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.
The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.
Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.
In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.
And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.
Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.
Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.
She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.
“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”
VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.
Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.
Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.
The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.
Image: (L-R) Suzanne’s Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA
Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.
“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”
The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.
Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.
The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.
They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.
MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.
“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.
“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.
“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”