Buy and send Bitcoin to foreign citizen after receiving USD wire transfer into bank account

[xylene]

I'm saddened that you can't see that.

I too am sad.

Very sad that in your opinions what is very much seems to be structuring and placement is apparently risk-less behavior if cryptocurrencies are involved...

Yes. I'm going to go home and cry.

 

[xylene]

So - just to recap because I'm stupid beyond words:

1. We have a pattern of international wire transfers in large amounts from people with ADMITTEDLY no trustworthy contacts in their home country or countries. That's NEVER going to draw scrutiny or be subject to SAR reporting. Oh wait, it surely will be.

2. The OP will be removing large amounts of money from the regular financial channels and then literally mailing physical bitcoin wallets. I'm sure the full value will be declared and there won't ever be anything lost in the mail that would have to be explained to his friends, who will understand perfectly.

3. The OP's friends would definitely be honest if the source of these funds were anything but above board, because he could be really burned if wasn't since knowledge of the source of funds or even specific intent isn't elements of a money laundering prosecution or forfeiture action - which of course could go after his own co-mingled funds. Being a dupe isn't defense.

4. And hopefully this highly secretive cryptocurrency isn't going to wind up tied to anything illegal, nefarious or god forbid terroristic. What with him being the last named ledger entry using his own coinbase account... But these are friends so this is a good mitigation of a serious risk.

 

[Whoops2u]

1. We have a pattern of international wire transfers in large amounts from people with ADMITTEDLY no trustworthy contacts in their home country or countries. That's NEVER going to draw scrutiny or be subject to SAR reporting. Oh wait, it surely will be.

I think the real issue is not the technical ability of the overseas persons OR an intent to violate U.S. money laundering laws; it is because bitcoin is illegal in China. Perhaps Tcsekhar is helping citizens in China sample freedom. If you look to articles written around the beginning of the year, you see many Asian countries are contemplating the same. (Including South Korea.)

2. The OP will be removing large amounts of money from the regular financial channels and then literally mailing physical bitcoin wallets. I'm sure the full value will be declared and there won't ever be anything lost in the mail that would have to be explained to his friends, who will understand perfectly.

You are the only one who keeps using the term "large" amounts of money. We have no idea of the amounts in consideration.

 

[quincy]

I agree with xylene. There is risk in doing what Tcsekhar is contemplating doing. S/he should speak with an attorney in Illinois.

A link to coindesk that provides coverage on some of these risks: https://www.coindesk.com/information/is-bitcoin-legal/

 

[Taxing Matters]

So - just to recap because I'm stupid beyond words:

1. We have a pattern of international wire transfers in large amounts from people with ADMITTEDLY no trustworthy contacts in their home country or countries. That's NEVER going to draw scrutiny or be subject to SAR reporting. Oh wait, it surely will be.

2. The OP will be removing large amounts of money from the regular financial channels and then literally mailing physical bitcoin wallets. I'm sure the full value will be declared and there won't ever be anything lost in the mail that would have to be explained to his friends, who will understand perfectly.

3. The OP's friends would definitely be honest if the source of these funds were anything but above board, because he could be really burned if wasn't since knowledge of the source of funds or even specific intent isn't elements of a money laundering prosecution or forfeiture action - which of course could go after his own co-mingled funds. Being a dupe isn't defense.

4. And hopefully this highly secretive cryptocurrency isn't going to wind up tied to anything illegal, nefarious or god forbid terroristic. What with him being the last named ledger entry using his own coinbase account... But these are friends so this is a good mitigation of a serious risk.

Just to recap: you are making assumptions based on what you think will be going on rather than actual facts of what will occur. I am not willing to make those assumptions. That is the difference. Could there be something illegal going on here? That is certainly a possibility. Do I know that there is illegal activity? No, I don't, because there are simply insufficent facts to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other. My position has nothing to do with "libertarian hogwash" and indeed your use of that term to describe my position tells me that you evidently do not understand where I am coming from. My position is simply one of applying logic and not be willing to make what may be unwarranted assumptions based on very, very few actual facts. Nothing more or less than that. It's what good lawyers do when looking at a situation. Rather than assuming things, we want to know the actual facts and what evidence there is to support it.

 

[quincy]

A good lawyer sees the risks inherent in an activity and informs his clients of these risks.

A couple I know in the US who have family living overseas had their bank accounts frozen for two months during an investigation by federal agents into the possibility they were operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. I understand from researching the matter that theirs was not an isolated case.

 

[Taxing Matters]

A good lawyer sees the risks inherent in an activity and informs his clients of these risks.

But with the client the lawyer has the chance to learn all the facts so that a proper assessment of the risk can be made.
I do not have that opportunity here.

I'll certainly agree that there is the possibility that something illegal may be occurring and agree that the OP would be wise to consult an attorney so that a complete review of the situation can be done. But I will not characterize the OP's plan as "absurd and risky" as xylene did based on minimal facts. I want to know more before making those kinds statements. Do you think it is appropriate to make those kinds of judgments on what little facts the OP has provided?

 

[quincy]

But with the client the lawyer has the chance to learn all the facts so that a proper assessment of the risk can be made.
I do not have that opportunity here.

I'll certainly agree that there is the possibility that something illegal may be occurring and agree that the OP would be wise to consult an attorney so that a complete review of the situation can be done. But I will not characterize the OP's plan as "absurd and risky" as xylene did based on minimal facts. I want to know more before making those kinds statements. Do you think it is appropriate to make those kinds of judgments on what little facts the OP has provided?

While I wouldn't necessarily characterize the proposed plan as "absurd," I definitely see it as "risky" and have no problem characterizing it as such.

I think when few facts are provided it is best to err on the side of caution and advise that someone consult with a lawyer in their own jurisdiction for a personal review of all facts.

We were not given the name of the Asian country involved and that can make a big difference in the legality and the risk.

By the way, the couple I know did nothing wrong. Despite this, they had to manage without access to necessary funds in their bank accounts. They were investigated solely because of transfers they made to a foreign country (and, arguably, because of their religion).

 

[Dutch Puppybreath]

Exchanges require certain KYC qualifications to ensure compliance with AML laws. Perhaps these Asian friends do not qualify, or wish to remain anonymous? Perhaps - unlike this forum - they are unable to exercise their will, or even express themselves? In that case, I think being a good Samaritan and being a "friend" shouldn't be criticized. Of course, if he's financing terrorism then throw him to the wolves - but that's not my call, and I have my own problems. Don't you?

 

[Zigner]

smh

 

[quincy]

Exchanges require certain KYC qualifications to ensure compliance with AML laws. Perhaps these Asian friends do not qualify, or wish to remain anonymous? Perhaps - unlike this forum - they are unable to exercise their will, or even express themselves? In that case, I think being a good Samaritan and being a "friend" shouldn't be criticized. Of course, if he's financing terrorism then throw him to the wolves - but that's not my call, and I have my own problems. Don't you?

Huh?

 

[Dutch Puppybreath]

I was replying to the original topic... it doesn't sound like the people expressing themselves here have much experience in crypto and the challenges it presents. I thought I was adding content to a valid question - sorry if I interrupted something else. My bad.

 

[quincy]

I was replying to the original topic... it doesn't sound like the people expressing themselves here have much experience in crypto and the challenges it presents. I thought I was adding content to a valid question - sorry if I interrupted something else. My bad.

Being a "friend" in the way described in this thread does not come without legal risk.

 

[LdiJ]

I didn't imply anything. I stated a well formed and rational opinion.

This is suspicious, and fraught with criminal and civil risk, which is a lot to put up with for a 'favor'

A favor would be educating someone on how to execute this transaction on their own, ostensibly the reason these people can't make this transaction.

Receiving a series of large wire transfers from abroad and then immediately purchasing bitcoin with those funds is a suspicious transaction pattern that will be noticed by any compliant financial entity.

I could have been the OP's best man and that would still be true. It doesn't matter how well any of us know these people.

No amount of libertarian hogwash changes that. You are simply wrong in your assessment of risk in this situation as described by the OP.

Not trying to be argumentative but there was absolutely nothing in the original post that indicated that the transactions would be large enough to draw anyone's attention at all.

 

[quincy]

Not trying to be argumentative but there was absolutely nothing in the original post that indicated that the transactions would be large enough to draw anyone's attention at all.

Nor was there anything said to suggest they were small.