TY - JOUR
T1 - Countering money laundering and terrorist financing
T2 - A case for bitcoin regulation
AU - Fletcher, Emily
AU - Larkin, Charles
AU - Corbet, Shaen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - Bitcoin was created in 2008 to serve as an alternative payment mechanism for both the under-banked and un-banked, or those in regions where the formal financial system suffers from broad corruption and efficient regulation. However, criminals and terrorists quickly exploited Bitcoin's unique properties, namely its peer-to-peer nature and pseudo-anonymity, to facilitate extensive terrorist financing and money laundering schemes. Government reactions to safeguard national security interests have been extremely varied, ranging from outright bans to passive tolerance. This inconsistency stems from how to effectively classify Bitcoin. On one side are those who argue Bitcoin is a currency, and on the other are those who claim it is a type of asset. In the US alone, these discrepancies have led to a bureaucratic turf war between different regulatory bodies, namely the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Commodity Futures Trading Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service. This study seeks to move beyond the existing legal frameworks, arguing that Bitcoin should be classified as a technology and regulation should rest with private sector technology companies.
AB - Bitcoin was created in 2008 to serve as an alternative payment mechanism for both the under-banked and un-banked, or those in regions where the formal financial system suffers from broad corruption and efficient regulation. However, criminals and terrorists quickly exploited Bitcoin's unique properties, namely its peer-to-peer nature and pseudo-anonymity, to facilitate extensive terrorist financing and money laundering schemes. Government reactions to safeguard national security interests have been extremely varied, ranging from outright bans to passive tolerance. This inconsistency stems from how to effectively classify Bitcoin. On one side are those who argue Bitcoin is a currency, and on the other are those who claim it is a type of asset. In the US alone, these discrepancies have led to a bureaucratic turf war between different regulatory bodies, namely the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Commodity Futures Trading Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service. This study seeks to move beyond the existing legal frameworks, arguing that Bitcoin should be classified as a technology and regulation should rest with private sector technology companies.
KW - Cryptocurrency
KW - Money laundering
KW - Regulation
KW - Terrorist financing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101864835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101387
DO - 10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101387
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85101864835
VL - 56
JO - Research in International Business and Finance
JF - Research in International Business and Finance
SN - 0275-5319
M1 - 101387
ER -