The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury has sanctioned crypto wallets allegedly connected to individuals and companies involved in the production of fentanyl.
In an Oct. 3 notice, the U.S. Justice Department announced indictments against several China-based chemical manufacturers as well as many of their employees, who allegedly used crypto transactions as part of an illegal fentanyl precursor distribution scheme. According to the U.S. authorities, the companies “tend to use cryptocurrency transactions to conceal their identities and the location and movement of their funds”, identifying at least 3 individuals who held crypto wallets for payments.
OFAC added wallets for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), USD Coin (USDC), Tether (USDT) and Tron (TRX) connected to Chinese nationals and Valerian Labs to its list of Specially Designated Nationals along with companies including Hanhong Pharmaceutical Technology and Hebei Crovell Biotech. According to Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo, the enforcement action was aimed at disrupting an illicit drug network.
‘[W]e have identified and blocked over a dozen virtual currency wallets associated with these actors,” said Adeyemo. “The blocked wallets, which received millions of USD funds over hundreds of deposits, illustrate the scope and scale of the operation targeted today.”
Justice Department Announces Eight Indictments Against China-Based Chemical Manufacturing Companies and Employeeshttps://t.co/f37okHaa6z
Many lawmakers have urged action on cracking down on the distribution of fentanyl in the United States, where the drug was estimated to be responsible for more than 67,000 deaths in 2021. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — an outspoken critic of digital assets — called out potential links between crypto payments and drug trafficking in a May hearing.
The first week in October also marked the 10th year in prison for Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the online marketplace Silk Road. Many criticized the platform for facilitating the drug trade by allowing payments with digital assets, but Ulbricht still has his supporters in the crypto space.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.