East Bay defense contractors charged with money laundering, fraud, conspiracy

MARTINEZ — Three members of a respected San Ramon business family have been accused of engaging in money laundering, bribing employees, and insurance fraud, all while their companies were contracting with the U.S. Armed forces.

Wife and husband Selina Singh, 55, and Manjinder Paul “MP” Singh, 57, along with their son, Kabir Singh, 28, were charged in November with conspiracy, $1.5 million in money laundering and several counts of workers compensation fraud and insurance fraud, according to court records. The charges are tied to two San Ramon businesses owned by the family, Bara Infoware and Federal Solutions Group.

Selina and Kabir Singh have both posted bail, and are out of custody. MP Singh has not yet been arrested, prosecutors said. On Monday, a judge will review a prosecution motion to increase the bail amount to $500,000.

The charging documents allege that the defendants instructed employees not to report injuries, sometimes giving them bribes as an incentive, in order to avoid paying insurance fees. They’re also accused of providing false information to insurance companies.

Both companies are construction businesses that contract with the Department of Defense, according to the companies’ websites. Federal Solutions Group’s website says its clients include the U.S. Armed Services, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Neither business nor Selina Singh immediately returned email requests for comment. A 2016 article by a business news site called American City Business Journals says Singh is Federal Solution’s Group’s CEO. She is quoted in the article saying she immigrated to the United States from Northern India and had no business experience in the U.S. when she started. She talked about the need for obsessive attention to detail in her field.

“One failed project can bring you down after five or six years of work,” she told the publication. “So we have to be extremely diligent in everything we do.”

A former manager at Federal Solutions Group is quoted in the story saying Singh “takes care of her employees.”

The charging records cover a seven-year period, starting in September 2010 until December 2017. All told, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office filed 14 felony charges, including enhancements alleging aggravated white-collar crime.

What drives a public official to white-collar crime? ‘Greed’

By Jennifer Bowman

ASHEVILLE — Buncombe County officials illegally used taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves, paying for daytime shopping trips, private phone bills, meals, vacations, spa treatments and other personal pleasures, according to federal indictments. Three of them have admitted as much.

Research says they’re not the first to try out government corruption.

A 2018 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found occupational fraud in government and public administration caused organizations a median loss of more than $125,000, most commonly through corruption schemes. Financial damage was worse when the fraud was committed by a person of authority like a manager or executive, and even greater when multiple perpetrators were involved.

What is the cost to Buncombe County?

In Buncombe, federal prosecutors say corruption has cost much more. Even without quantifying the alleged kickbacks received by former managers Wanda Greene, Mandy Stone and Jon Creighton, the U.S. Attorney’s Office cited more than $200,000 in illegal credit card purchases and more than $2.5 million used for life insurance policies.

That’s not including millions of dollars in other controversial expenses made under Greene’s 20-year tenure as county manager, prosecutors allege.

What would drive Buncombe’s highest-ranking administrators — already paid handsomely with six-figure base salaries, bonuses, retention incentives and some of the best benefits in the state — to behave in such a way?

If they’re like any white-collar criminal, it’s greed, said Michael Clark, a former FBI agent with decades of experience investigating public corruption.

“They go in there usually with pretty good intentions, and they see (money) all around them,” Clark said. “They’re giving out a million-dollar contract to a sewer guy, another million to a road guy. Everyone’s getting rich around them — they have a lot of money, beach houses, ski trips, trips to Florida.

“The county manager — they’re civil servants. They’re making a set salary, which is comfortable but not rich. They kind of feel this sense of entitlement. ‘I’m as smart as these guys. They’re rich. I’m stuck with a civil service job. I deserve the perks.’ The greed part steps in. And we saw that time after time after time.”

No oversight? ‘That just opens the floodgates’

The report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, conducted annually and in its 10th edition, said most employees never commit fraud. But when they do, researchers said, they can cause “enormous damage.”

Of nearly 2,700 cases across more than 100 countries, the study found that most occupational fraud costs a victim organization less than $200,000. Twenty-two percent, however, exceed $1 million in financial damage.

The schemes last an average of 16 months, according to the report. Government and public organizations are among the industries with the highest proportion of corruption cases.

Prosecutors allege fraud in Buncombe County government is wide-ranging, involves multiple longtime officials and dates back to more than a decade ago.

Four officials have been indicted: Greene, Stone, Creighton, and Michael Greene, Wanda Greene’s adult son and the county’s former business intelligence manager.

All but Wanda Greene have reached deals with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, pleading guilty to conspiracy charges. Joe Wiseman, a Georgia-based engineer said to be at the center of the yearslong kickback scheme with the former managers, has not been charged.

The four ex-officials represent a total of nearly 110 years as county employees. Wanda Greene served as county manager for two decades — nearly three times longer than the average tenure of city and county managers in the U.S. Stone and Creighton were Buncombe staffers for even longer.

Fraudsters who had been working with their company longer stole twice as much, according to fraud examiners’ findings: If the perpetrator had worked more than 10 years at the organization, the financial damage increased by over six times more than the median loss caused by the fraudulent scheme of someone who worked there less than one year.

“Some people get in these positions and there’s no oversight,” said Thomas Raftery III, a former FBI agent who investigated construction and contract fraud in the Afghanistan war zone.

“And that just opens up the floodgates. You gotta have some type of system of checks and balances and it doesn’t look like this county had any.”

The FBI investigation: 18 months and counting

Federal officials confirmed Wanda Greene “and others” were under investigation in August 2017, more than a month after county officials flagged financial irregularities during Greene’s last week as manager.

The investigation continues nearly a year and a half later. That’s common, former FBI agents said.

“Some of these types of investigations, they’ve taken several years — as many as five years,” Raftery said. “It depends on what’s involved, what else is going on. The agents typically have other cases, so there’s peaks and valleys in attention.”

Raftery said it’s likely the county investigation has required “a whole host of subpoenas.” The superseding indictment, in which a grand jury indicted Greene for additional charges in August, is evidence that investigators likely are picking up additional information along the way, he said.

Raftery, who has 23 years of federal law enforcement experience and served as the first inspector general for the Delaware River Port Authority, said the FBI also pays special attention to professional services contracts like those granted to Wiseman. In North Carolina and other states, they’re not subject to bidding requirements and “are a great way to shield bribes,” he said.

“They’re just more prone to manipulation,” Raftery said.

Clark said corruption cases can be complicated. A 22-year veteran of the FBI, he supervised the investigation of former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, a case that ultimately led to the governor’s imprisonment for corruption and fraud.

Clark also oversaw major bribery and kickback investigations of several mayors throughout the state, and his work on high-profile corruption cases made the bureau’s public integrity operation in Connecticut a national model. He now is a senior lecturer in the criminal justice department at the University of New Haven.

Investigators looking into Buncombe County likely have been working through subpoenaed records, from credit card statements to travel documents, Clark said. And corruption cases often work on “moving up the food chain,” he said — finding others, perhaps more significant participants, potentially engaged in corruption.

“Let’s say they get a plea or someone decides to cooperate,” Clark said. “They’re cooperating behind the scenes before they even plead, most of the time. (Investigators) are lifting up the rocks and taking a peek and looking around, and they are sent down a whole new path.”

And the decision to cooperate is a common one, he said.

“For the most part, they’re not hardened criminals who are used to doing jail time,” Clark said. “If you’re a drug dealer or in the mob, that’s a red badge of courage. With a white-collar crime person or a public official, that’s not the case.

“They’ll cut a deal.”

‘There’s got to be checks and balances’

Internal control weaknesses were responsible for nearly half of all fraud cases, according the fraud examiners’ report. In Buncombe, officials quickly became aware of what they lacked, albeit after the fact.

“When they’ve been in that one job for that long, they certainly know how to manipulate the system, there’s no question about that,” Clark said. “They know where they can hide things or grab things from, things along those lines.”

The investigation revealed glaring problems in Buncombe County government.

Commissioners never received line-item budgets under Greene, never gave her annual performance reviews and did not regularly ask for information about her expense reports. Greene, meanwhile, redacted receipts she submitted for reimbursement, was accused of using bullying and intimidation techniques, and never reported back to commissioners on no-bid contracts,.

The county has since overhauled its policies, clamping down on how economic development money is spent, capping performance bonuses and promoting their whistleblower hotline. They’ve also changed auditing firms, strengthened the role of the county’s internal auditor and required more public reporting of contract activity.

Raftery said oversight is key, even if it’s unpopular in the organization. As inspector general, he said he regularly received pushback after issuing negative reports and implementing policies against waste and fraud. He left the job in 2014, penning a scathing resignation letter that accused officials of interfering with his independent watchdog role and preventing him from issuing audits.

Commissioners need to take responsibility for their fiduciary duty, Raftery said, and that includes being aware of contracts that don’t require their approval.

And they should remember that the county manager works for them, not the other way around, he said.

“What little I saw (about the case) just struck me — where is the oversight?” Raftery said. “Nobody’s watching. You’ve got two, three people there it looks like just doing whatever they wanted to do.

“And they got caught. Because, eventually, you’re going to get caught.”

Bitcoin’s ‘First Felon’ Faces More Legal Trouble

Charlie Shrem went to prison in 2015 after he pleaded guilty to helping people buy drugs online. Now he’s being sued by the Winklevoss twins.

SAN FRANCISCO — Over the last year, Charlie Shrem, a 28-year-old Bitcoin investor, has bought two Maseratis, two powerboats — one of them 32 feet long — and a $2 million house in Florida, along with smaller pieces of real estate.

In the world of cryptocurrencies, where millions can be made and lost in a day, that might not make Mr. Shrem stand out. But unlike most Bitcoin entrepreneurs, in 2016 Mr. Shrem got out of prison, where he spent a year after pleading guilty to illegally helping people turn dollars into Bitcoin to buy drugs online.

Mr. Shrem, who had been the chief executive of Bitinstant, one of the first prominent Bitcoin businesses in the United States, has said in recent interviews that he went to prison with almost no money.

So where did the money for the expensive toys come from? That’s what two former business partners want to know.

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twins who turned money from a settlement with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg into a Bitcoin fortune, said they suspected Mr. Shrem had actually been spending Bitcoin that he owed them since 2012, according to a lawsuit unsealed in federal court on Thursday. The Bitcoin would be worth around $32 million at current prices.

“Either Shrem has been incredibly lucky and successful since leaving prison, or — more likely — he ‘acquired’ his six properties, two Maseratis, two powerboats and other holdings with the appreciated value of the 5,000 Bitcoin he stole from” the Winklevoss twins in 2012, the lawsuit says.

The judge who oversaw Mr. Shrem’s earlier trial has already agreed to freeze some of Mr. Shrem’s financial assets, according to court documents.

The lawsuit could blossom into an even bigger problem for Mr. Shrem because an affidavit filed in court suggests that Mr. Shrem has also not paid the government $950,000 in restitution that he agreed to as part of his 2014 guilty plea.

Mr. Shrem’s lawyer, Brian Klein, said in a statement that the claims by the Winklevoss brothers were baseless. “The lawsuit erroneously alleges that about six years ago Charlie essentially misappropriated thousands of Bitcoins,” he said. “Nothing could be further from the truth. Charlie plans to vigorously defend himself and quickly clear his name.”.

The lawsuit from the twins threatens another reversal of fortune for Mr. Shrem, who went from being one of the earliest Bitcoin millionaires to being called Bitcoin’s “first felon.”

When he was arrested in 2014, Mr. Shrem was accused by federal authorities of using his company, Bitinstant, to knowingly sell Bitcoin to people who wanted it to buy drugs from the online black market, Silk Road.

Since his release in 2016, Mr. Shrem has said in numerous interviews that he recognizes his past mistakes and wants to cut a new and legal path. On the podcast “Love, Sex and Money,” Mr. Shrem said that in the first months out of prison, he worked as a dishwasher and didn’t look at his email.

Over the last year, though, Mr. Shrem, has already gotten involved with a number of troubled projects.

He was among the leaders of two efforts — one a cryptocurrency credit card and the other an initial coin offering — that had to give money back to investors after various partnerships that Mr. Shrem had promised fell through.

But those are likely to be mere headaches compared to what he could face in a confrontation with the Winklevoss twins. Mr. Shrem helped get the brothers interested in Bitcoin in 2012 and became their first adviser in the young industry.

A few months into this partnership, the twins said they realized that Mr. Shrem had not given them all the Bitcoin they were due. The brothers gave Mr. Shrem $250,000 in September 2012, but the lawsuit says that a month later, he only delivered around $189,000 worth of Bitcoin at the going price, which was around $12.50 at the time.

The 5,000 or so missing Bitcoins became a point of tension between the twins and Mr. Shrem. They asked him numerous times for an accounting of the Bitcoins he had purchased and eventually brought in an accountant who documented the missing funds, according to court documents.

“I have been patient and at this point, it’s getting a bit absurd,” Cameron Winklevoss wrote to Mr. Shrem in 2013 in an email quoted in the lawsuit. “I don’t take this lightly.”

The missing Bitcoin, which were worth 98 percent less at the time, appeared to have been forgotten in a broader battle between the brothers and Mr. Shrem over an investment in Bitinstant.

In 2013, Bitinstant fell apart and the twins blocked Mr. Shrem’s efforts to revive the company with new investors because of their concerns about his management style. By the time Mr. Shrem was arrested in 2014, as a result of activities at Bitinstant that took place before the brothers invested, they had cut off contact with him.

The Winklevoss twins’ problems with Mr. Shrem have not held them back. They were briefly each cryptocurrency billionaires last year, and they have built one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges, Gemini. Despite this year’s big drop in cryptocurrency prices, their holdings are still worth nearly a billion dollars.

Cameron Winklevoss said that he and his brother decided to pursue the missing Bitcoins again after they saw Mr. Shrem’s recent spending patterns.

“When he purchased $4 million in real estate, two Maseratis, and two power boats, we decided it was time to get to the bottom of it,” Mr. Winklevoss told The New York Times.

The brothers hired an investigator, who found that 5,000 Bitcoins were transferred in 2013 through addresses associated with Mr. Shrem and onto the Bitcoin wallet services Xapo and Coinbase, according to the complaint. The investigator traced the money on the blockchain, the public ledger where all Bitcoin transactions are recorded.

Jed S. Rakoff, a judge in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, approved an application the twins made in September to freeze any funds that Mr. Shrem holds with those companies. Judge Rakoff wrote in his order that Mr. Shrem had “evidenced an intent to frustrate the collection efforts of his creditors.”

The court fight could cause problems for Mr. Shrem’s latest venture, a firm called Crypto.IQ. The company, which promises market intelligence to Bitcoin traders, is holding a conference for customers in Las Vegas this month promising “unparalleled insights from a roster of experts at the very epicenter of the crypto universe.”

In an interview with Breaker magazine last month, Mr. Shrem said he was getting used to the ups and downs.

“My personal life goes through bull and bear markets, too,” he said. “So the key is how to deal with it when you’re in the bear markets.”

Security minister reveals knowledge of football money-laundering investigation

Ben Wallace says the sports industry “is as susceptible as anything else” to being used to hide the source of dirty money.

New York Red Bulls made the play-offs by beating Montreal on Saturday evening
‘I know of (a) professional football club or clubs under investigation,’ Mr Wallace said

A professional football club or clubs are being investigated over allegations of money laundering, a minister has said.

Security minister Ben Wallace told the treasury select committee that the sports industry “is as susceptible as anything else” to being used to hide the source of dirty money.

Committee member and Labour MP John Mann asked Mr Wallace: “When it comes to money laundering, how many professional football clubs have been deemed as requiring investigation currently?”
Ben Wallace arrives at Downing Street
The minister said it can take years for money laundering investigations to finish

The minister replied: “I know of (a) professional football club or clubs under investigation.

“I couldn’t reveal how many and what they are, for that is an operational matter.”

When he was pushed to give the number involved, Mr Wallace said: “There are live investigations that go on all the time and to expand any more could threaten investigations.

“The sports industry is as susceptible as anything else to dirty money being invested or their organizations being used as a way to launder money.”

Mr Wallace told the MPs it can take years for investigations into money laundering to be finished.

He said suspicious activity reports, a means of giving information to police about potential criminal activity by customers or clients, should be made “by anyone” and not just banks.

“Not enough” had been reported by the football authorities, Mr Wallace told the committee.

A National Crime Agency spokeswoman said: “We do not routinely confirm or deny the existence of investigations.”

“We have not charged any professional football clubs with money laundering, and there are none currently in the court process.”

https://news.sky.com/story/security-minister-reveals-knowledge-of-football-money-laundering-investigation-11540039

Bitcoin [BTC] worth $5.84 million stolen from MapleChange; Binance CEO gives his insight

MapleChange, a Canada-based cryptocurrency exchange, recently announced that their platform was hacked. The exchange platform took to their Twitter handle to provide clarity on the situation, stating that they could not refund the stolen cryptocurrencies.

According to their official post, a bug on the platform enabled a group of hackers to withdraw funds remotely. The platform reported that 913 Bitcoins [BTC] were stolen and that they cannot refund any of the funds until a “thorough investigation” was conducted.

Another controversial aspect was that the “thorough investigation” resulted in the exchange platform realizing that they did not have funds for repaying its users. Furthermore, they stated that the platform would not function anymore and that they would soon deactivate their social media channels. Their official post stated:

“We have sustained a hack, and we are investigating the issue.”

On their official Twitter handle, the exchange stated that they had not “disappeared”, but had temporarily turned off their accounts to think of a solution.

In addition, they could not refund “everyone with all their funds”, but would soon open wallets in order to allow its users to “hopefully” withdraw whatever funds were left on the exchange. They added:

“We CANNOT refund any BTC or LTC funds unfortunately. We will try our best to refund everything else.”

Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of trading volume, was surprised by the hack and stated that a procedure was required to rank exchanges based on their wallet storage. He added that users had to avoid using exchange platforms which did not have anything in their cold wallets.

Maplechange’ed, a platform dedicated to find, take down and expose maplechange.com, with the help of members from the Lumeneo [LMO] telegram channel, allegedly found that Glad Poenaru, a service technician at American Piledriving Equipment, could have been responsible for the hack.

Joseph Young, a cryptocurrency investor and analyst, stated:

“A small crypto exchange pulled off an exit scam, taking all customer funds. There is no incentive for using small exchanges. Use established exchanges that are regulated, & transparent. Small exchanges also focus on maximizing profitability, not security or investor protection.”

MapleChange further added:

“We are sending all of the coin developers the wallets containing the coins we have left. So far, LMO and CCX have been handed over the funds.”

https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-worth-5-84-million-stolen-from-maplechange-binance-ceo-gives-his-insight/

How The Unexplained Wealth Order Combats Money Laundering

The UK is a haven for dirty money; more than £90 billion is estimated to be laundered through the country per year. The size of the UK’s financial and professional services sector, its open economy and the attractiveness of the London property market to overseas investors all make it unusually exposed to international money laundering risks. As part of new measures to tackle asset recovery and money laundering, the UK government introduced Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) in January, which are being hailed as the cure to Britain’s dirty money problem.

What is an Unexplained Wealth Order?

UWOs require the owner of an asset worth more than £50,000 to explain how they were able to afford that asset. Introduced primarily to target Russian and Azerbaijan laundromats, UWOs have wide-ranging applications to all situations where the National Crime Agency (NCA) believes wealth was acquired illicitly, including tax evasion.

The game-changing nature of UWOs lies in the power they give UK law enforcement to prosecute. Formerly, little could be done to act on highly suspicious wealth unless there was a legal conviction in the country of origin. In cases where the origin country is in crisis or the individual holds power within a corrupt government, this is unlikely to be achieved. Where previously law enforcement agencies needed to prove in court that an asset was purchased with laundered funds, UWOs shift the burden of proof away from prosecutors and on to the asset’s owner.

Preventing Financial Crime with Unexplained Wealth Orders

The first successful use of a UWO since its implementation is the recent case of Zamira Hajiyeva, who owns millions of dollars in properties in London through offshore companies. Her husband, Jahangir Hajiyev, was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison for fraud and misappropriation of public funds, and authorities were able to identify a clear disparity between his income and the couple’s apparent wealth.

With corruption watchdog Transparency International estimating that £4 billion of UK property has been purchased with the proceeds of crime, it is hoped that this successful implementation of a UWO will herald a clampdown on overseas criminals laundering via the property market.

The success of this UWO has been fundamental in beginning to reduce the appeal of the UK as a destination for illicit income. In June, mortgage brokers were already reporting that Russian purchases of prime real estate in London had slowed as a result of both government pressure and a tightening of anti-money laundering rules.

There are, however, reasons to be wary of perceiving the introduction of UWOs as a cure-all for the UK’s money laundering problems. These court orders are ineffective as soon as a defendant can provide an explanation for the source of their wealth. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, they then win the argument. Legal difficulties and costs are other factors that can lead to delays in the UK’s fight against money laundering, while information obtained via a UWO cannot be used in criminal proceedings against the respondent. For UWOs to have credibility, authorities will need to ensure the first uses of them continue to be successful in order to serve as a useful deterrent going forward.

Further, money laundering covers a wide range of criminal activity and consequently can’t be solved by a single approach. Fragmented supervision and anonymous ownership of property in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are just two areas where Transparency International is still advocating for change to improve the UK’s asset recovery and anti-money laundering regime.

How Can We Continue to Fight Money Laundering?

It is clear that UWOs have the potential to act as powerful tools for law enforcement but are not yet being used frequently enough— more action is required if real change is to come. We need further action from the government to restrict property ownership and levy realistic local taxes.

With UWOs beginning to lead to the identification of criminals, questions will be asked of the financial institutions who facilitated the individual’s money management. To better equip themselves for the fight against money laundering, banks need to overhaul outdated AML systems to suit the complexity of the schemes perpetrated by criminals. They need to combat problems by employing entity resolution and network analysis techniques to understand vast data networks and identify hidden money.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/10/25/how-the-unexplained-wealth-order-combats-money-laundering/#26a904a54703

Capital One Bank Fined $100 Million Over Money-Laundering Controls

Capital One Financial Corp. COF -1.69% has paid a $100 million fine over regulatory deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering program, federal regulators said Tuesday.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency levied the fine, saying the bank had several weaknesses in its compliance programs and risk assessment and failed to file some suspicious activity reports flagging potentially problematic transactions. The civil penalty came after the OCC initially cited deficiencies at Capital One in July 2015.

The bank has paid the fine to the U.S. Treasury, according to the OCC.

A Capital One spokeswoman said that the issue resulting in the fine was related to “prior banking relationships with certain check cashing service providers.” The bank said it left the business in 2014. The fine is part of resolving the consent order, she said.

“Since that time, we have worked diligently with our bank regulators to strengthen our processes and internal controls to ensure we address any concerns” regarding compliance with federal anti-money-laundering laws, the Capital One spokeswoman said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/capital-one-fined-100-million-over-anti-money-laundering-program-1540318983

How Binance is Legitimizing the Crypto Market by Eliminating Money Laundering

Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, has voluntarily engaged in an initiative to eliminate money laundering on its platform.

For years, despite the inherent lack of privacy measures on major public blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum that discourage the settlement of illicit transactions, a widely pushed narrative against crypto has been the suspected usage of digital assets by criminals.

Eliminating Easily Refutable Claims

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, EOS, and many other major cryptocurrencies are not anonymous by nature. With Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) systems integrated by cryptocurrency exchanges, it is extremely difficult for criminals to utilize digital assets to settle the transfer of illegal proceeds.

Authorities and government agencies across the globe are well aware of the non-anonymous characteristic of blockchains, which could have motivated governments like the US, Japan, and South Korea to legitimate and recognize the cryptocurrency market.

This week, Binance has started to cooperate with Chainalysis, a leading blockchain analysis company that evaluates suspicious transactions and addresses, to improve its AML system and to further legitimize the cryptocurrency sector.

binance cryptocurrency exchange

“Cryptocurrency businesses of all sizes face the same core challenge: earning the trust of regulators, financial institutions and users. We expect many to follow Binance’s lead to build world-class AML compliance programs to satisfy regulators globally and build trust with major financial institutions,” said Jonathan Levin, co-founder and COO of Chainalysis.

In 2018, some of the world’s most influential banks were cracked down for money laundering. Danske Bank laundered $243 billion from criminal groups, and as CCN reported on October 20, Nordea Bank, the largest financial group in the Nordic countries, is said to have taken several illicit payments from banks in the Baltic region.

With the institutional market of cryptocurrencies growing exponentially, the tightening of AML systems employed by public exchanges is expected to solidify cryptocurrencies as a recognized asset class and the digital asset market as a well-regulated sector.

Wei Zhao, the CFO at Binance, said that maintaining the firm’s vision of increasing the freedom of money globally, the exchange will continue to adhere to regulatory mandates in the countries it operates in.

“By working with Chainalysis, we are able to continue building a foundational compliance program that enables the next phase of our growth. Our vision is to provide the infrastructure for a blockchain ecosystem and increase the freedom of money globally, while adhering to regulatory mandates in the countries we serve.”

Importance of Compliance

The cryptocurrency sector is entering a new phase of development and growth, as Zhou explained.

During the 2017 bull market in which the valuation of the cryptocurrency market surged to $800 billion, the asset class obtained significant mainstream awareness in both countries that support crypto and regions that have established impractical regulatory frameworks to prevent local blockchain markets to flourish.

In a period in which governments are introducing increasing efforts to embrace crypto and blockchain businesses as a part of the fourth industrial revolution, voluntary initiatives by companies like Binance to legitimize the industry will ease the process of governments in regulating and acknowledging the global market.

https://www.ccn.com/how-binance-is-legitimizing-the-crypto-market-by-eliminating-money-laundering/

Dark Web Dealer ‘OxyMonster’ Forfeits $700,000 in Crypto with 20-Year Prison Term

US District Judge Robert Scola has imposed a 20-year prison sentence on 36 year-old Gal Vallerius also known as “Oxymonster” on the dark web drug hub Dream Market.

In June, CCN reported that the French-Israeli citizen was apprehended by police at Atlanta airport in 2017 while attending the World Beard and Moustache Championship in Austin Texas. He will now start his prison term in Southern Florida after being convicted of money laundering and narcotics trafficking.

Huge Crypto Seizure

In his plea agreement, Vallerius admitted to selling drugs like oxycodone, heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and Ritalin in exchange for cryptocurrencies including bitcoin and bitcoin cash on the dark web. More than 100 BTC and 121.95 BCH – equivalent to over $700,000 – seized from him as proceeds of illicit activity will now be forfeited to the government.

For many, the big question following the forfeiture is: “What becomes of this huge amount of crypto in the hands of the U.S. government?”

A development of this nature is not new. In 2015, after Silk Road creator, Ross Ulbricht was given a life sentence, the government took possession of 144,336 BTC found on his laptop. At a time when the price of one bitcoin was just over $300, the government realized a total of over $48 million selling to multiple auctions. Some later criticized the government’s hasty sale which prevented it from earning far more.

With his plea agreement, sources say Vallerius would have to “provide all necessary passwords” to enable the government gain access. It remains uncertain if the government will take similar action to that taken of Silk Road, or delay auctions till prices show upward movement. The rarity of this situation makes it hard for analysts to predict what decision the government will make.

Earlier this week, Irish native Gary Davis pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drugs on the Silk Road under the alias Libertas. In 2017, the District Court in California also seized over $8 million worth of cryptocurrency from Alexandre Cazes who committed suicide in Thailand after being accused of running a dark web market AlphaBay. With more cases related to crime which might ultimately lead to similar forfeitures, the U.S. government might just be dealing with crypto auctions more regularly.

Some have however suggested that at a time when the U. S. Justice Department is investigating the possible manipulation of cryptocurrency prices, crypto acquired through the legal system is somewhat unlikely to last in the custody of government for long.

https://www.ccn.com/dark-web-dealer-oxymonster-forfeits-700000-in-crypto-with-20-year-prison-term/

Bitcoin Hedge Fund and CEO Slapped With $2.5 Million Penalty for Ponzi Scheme

A New York federal court has ordered cryptocurrency hedge fund Gelfman Blueprint, Inc. (GBI) and its CEO Nicholas Gelfman to pay over $2.5 million for operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, according to an official announcement published Oct. 18.

GBI is a New York-based corporation and denominated Bitcoin (BTC) hedge fund incorporated in 2014. As stated on the company’s website, by 2015 it had 85 customers and 2,367 BTC under management.

The order is the continuation of the initial anti-fraud enforcement action filed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) against GBI in September 2017. The CFTC charged GBI for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme from 2014 to 2016, telling investors that it had developed a computer algorithm called “Jigsaw” which allowed for substantial returns through a commodity fund. In reality, the entire scheme was a fraud.

Per the announcement, GBI and Gelfman fraudulently solicited over $600,000 from at least 80 customers. Moreover, Gelfman set up a fake computer “hack” to conceal the scheme’s trading losses. It eventually resulted in the loss of almost all customer funds.

The current order charges GBI and Gelfman to pay over $2.5 million in civil monetary penalties and restitution. GBI and Gelfman are ordered to pay $554,734.48 and $492,064.53 in restitution to customers and $1,854,000 and $177,501 in civil monetary penalties, respectively.

James McDonald, the CFTC’s Director of Enforcement, said that “this case marks yet another victory for the Commission in the virtual currency enforcement arena. As this string of cases shows, the CFTC is determined to identify bad actors in these virtual currency markets and hold them accountable.”

Last month, the CFTC filed a suit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against two defendants for the allegedly fraudulent solicitation of BTC. Per the suit, defendants Morgan Hunt and Kim Hecroft were running two fraudulent businesses and misleading the public to invest in leveraged or margined foreign currency contracts, such as forex, binary options, and diamonds.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-hedge-fund-and-ceo-slapped-with-25-million-penalty-for-ponzi-scheme
© Copyright 2018. The Anti-Money Laundering Association. All Rights Reserved