David Molnar writes:
> If payment mixes come online and the only visible users are "money
> launderers", then this common carrier argument will be difficult.
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that the early adopters of payment mixes may
> well be the "money launderers" -- it may take a while to con
> At 09:54 AM 3/7/00 -0500, Fisher Mark wrote:
> >Matter of fact, what a remailer network that does payment mixes for
> >anonymity _is_ money laundering, pure and simple. The essence of money
> >laundering is concealing where a glop of money comes from, which is exactly
> >what the PMFA is doin
>Under the same statutes the phone company could be prosecuted for "money
>laundering" if they refused to provide taps to suspected criminals.
Although IANAL, I'd say the phone company would fall under the accomplice
statutes -- aiding and abetting a crime and all that. These same statutes
would
At 09:54 AM 3/7/00 -0500, Fisher Mark wrote:
>Matter of fact, what a remailer network that does payment mixes for
>anonymity _is_ money laundering, pure and simple. The essence of money
>laundering is concealing where a glop of money comes from, which is exactly
>what the PMFA is doing.
Cash ha
At 8:19 PM -0500 3/6/00, dmolnar wrote:
> If payment mixes come online and the only visible users are "money
> launderers", then this common carrier argument will be difficult.
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that the early adopters of payment mixes may
> well be the "money launderers" -- it may
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 06:54:15PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Black Unicorn wrote:
> >
> > "Knowingly concealing or attempting to conceal the proceeds of a crime" is a
> > concept that is a good start.
>
> Can "common carrier" status be achieved? If you claim to be promoting
> simple high-qual
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Black Unicorn wrote:
> >
> > "Knowingly concealing or attempting to conceal the proceeds of a crime" is a
> > concept that is a good start.
>
> Can "common carrier" status be achieved? If you claim to be promoting
> simple high-quality privacy then yo
Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> "Knowingly concealing or attempting to conceal the proceeds of a crime" is a
> concept that is a good start.
Can "common carrier" status be achieved? If you claim to be promoting
simple high-quality privacy then you could plausibly deny "knowingly or
attempting to conc
