Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by seibelj on Monday October 19, 2020 @02:50PM
(#24829574)
I can’t think of any purpose of a VPN except to obfuscate your internet history. What are you trying to hide?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by _-___________-_ on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @03:15AM
(#24834644)
I use a VPN to access my home network when I'm not at home. Most businesses use it similarly to let their employees access the work network remotely. This is a far more common use of VPNs than the "cover your tracks" use (for which VPNs are usually terrible anyway).
I also sometimes use a VPN when an Internet hotspot seems shady, or provides a crappy connection in some way (spoofing DNS replies to insert advertising on NXDOMAIN, for example).
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by jcranmer on Monday October 19, 2020 @05:12PM
(#24831075)
I use a VPN to access my work's corporate services which are not available outside of the corporate network.
This is probably the single most common use of VPN software.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by ardy42 on Monday October 19, 2020 @03:08PM
(#24829737)
> I can’t think of any purpose of a VPN except to obfuscate your internet history. What are you trying to hide?
Money laundering (obfuscating the source of money) is actually a crime and for good reason. Obfuscating your internet history is not.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by leetcrew on Monday October 19, 2020 @03:34PM
(#24830006)
isn't it only money laundering if the funds themselves were illegally obtained? if I buy crypto with my wages from a legal job, put them through a tumbler, and then buy a dildo, why is that a problem?
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by miguelmota on Monday October 19, 2020 @04:21PM
(#24830535)
It's a problem if the source of funds are obtained illegally. Using tumblers is not illegal, but if using tumblers to make 'dirty' money appear clean then that's a problem.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by CryptoPunk on Monday October 19, 2020 @05:01PM
(#24830978)
>>Money laundering (obfuscating the source of money)
No, that is not the definition of money laundering. It does not broadly criminalize efforts to maintain financial privacy.
Money laundering means hiding the source of illegally obtained money.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by tripldohash on Monday October 19, 2020 @11:47PM
(#24833761)
Yes this is correct but you're only halfway through the complete definition of money laundering. Reading this thread was starting to fry my brain due to the amount of people that think money laundering is only about concealing the origin of illegally sourced funds. It's not just about hiding proceeds. You can also use money laundering to hide clean funds from uncle Sam. Take a look at Politicians,Billionaires,The orange president himself and ask yourself why do they all pay such low taxes? The panama papers were about rich people hiding their legally(keyword)sourced funds from say...assets,properties,other investments in offshore bank accounts located in places like Seychelles and panama while setting up shell companies to avoid the tax bracket. Doing all of this is by definition money laundering. Hope this provides clarity.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by CryptoPunk on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @12:06AM
(#24844655)
>>You can also use money laundering to hide clean funds from uncle Sam.
That is NOT defined as money laundering. That is tax evasion.
Re:First Bitcoin “mixer” penalized for violating anti-money ...
by tripldohash on Friday October 23, 2020 @01:26AM
(#24866266)
https://www.vernitaxlaw.com/money-laundering-is-tax-evasion/
I stand corrected.