• 15 hours ago
During a House Financial Services Committee hearing prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) questioned witnesses about the role of digital assets in illicit and illegal activity.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is also the ranking member on the Oversight
00:05and Investigation Subcommittee, is now recognized for five minutes.
00:10Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:11I thank the ranking member as well, and I'm grateful to the witnesses for appearing today.
00:20I would like an expression of whether or not it is beneficial for us to be concerned with
00:30the use of cryptocurrency in certain areas, more specifically, is it beneficial to use
00:38cryptocurrency of some type in money laundering, terrorist activities, ransomware attacks,
00:46illegal trafficking of drugs, sex, weapons, illegal gambling, and evasion of taxes?
00:55Ms. House, let's start with you.
00:57Is it beneficial for us to be concerned about the use of some sort of cryptocurrency with
01:04this type of criminality?
01:06It's beneficial for us to be concerned about it, if that's what you mean, if it's beneficial
01:10for us for its use in that way.
01:12No, it's not.
01:13It's only beneficial to those who are currently exploiting it.
01:16It's not inevitable to stay that way, but the current state of compliance across the
01:19ecosystem makes it attractive for those users.
01:23Explain what you mean by the state of compliance.
01:25Yes, sir.
01:27So basically, I was the head delegate to the FATF, kind of the UN for anti-money laundering.
01:33If you're not familiar with it, we created the first international standards for virtual
01:37assets in anti-money laundering.
01:40The standards exist.
01:41The policy exists.
01:43It just hasn't been implemented internationally.
01:44If we had wide-scale, cross-global implementation of our requirements to detect and prevent
01:51illicit activity and to stop use of, let's say, sanctioned actors in North Korea's use
01:56of cryptocurrency and that successful ability to launder, we wouldn't be in this current
02:01position.
02:02Unfortunately, it hasn't been implemented internationally.
02:06Does the bill in question prevent this type of illicit activity?
02:11I don't feel that the anti-money laundering measures in it are strong enough.
02:14It makes a reference to them being regulated under the Bank Secrecy Act, but there isn't
02:19clarity on who's purporting the regulations or how strong they need to be.
02:23And as a result, would we still have exposure to the criminality that I call to your attention?
02:31I fear that if we don't strengthen the measures, that that could be an outcome, especially
02:36the extraterritoriality provision.
02:41Is there a rush to judgment here, meaning a rush to, I shouldn't say judgment, a rush
02:48to get this done, such that we don't have the time to carefully craft legislation that
02:57will help us prevent this type of criminality?
03:03I would hope that even with the exigency of the issue, that given the years of bipartisan
03:08work that have been done by many members of this committee and those sitting in this room,
03:11we'd be able to leverage that work.
03:13I feel that the outcome of that work was more reflected in the McHenry-Waters bill, which
03:22had a more holistic coverage of these protections.
03:25I'm not certain why the new legislation doesn't integrate some of those stronger provisions,
03:31which I think would be beneficial.
03:34Would implementing those stronger provisions somehow weaken that legislation, this new
03:39legislation?
03:40I don't feel so.
03:41I think it would strengthen it and make it truly comprehensive.
03:46And do you think that the McHenry-Waters legislation had other redeeming value?
03:55Absolutely.
03:56I think that it had a much more fulsome, holistic list of different measures.
04:02There was some good overlap, too, things like one-to-one capital reserve requirements and
04:07a restriction on re-hypothecation and investment of depositors' assets, basically.
04:14But unfortunately, I feel that the STABLE Act is missing some of the most important
04:17provisions also that are outlined in the McHenry-Waters bill.
04:22When this illicit activity takes place and there's a transfer of money in an illegal
04:28fashion for illegal purposes, more appropriately, who benefits from that in the system?
04:40Currently, the illicit actors benefit from it.
04:43I think that no responsible actor wants to be a platform for money laundering or for
04:48North Korean sanctions evasion and proliferation financing.
04:52So really, it's just the illicit actors that are benefiting from lax controls.
04:55Quickly, to my last question.
04:56So when this occurs, does the person, the people who are purveyors of the currency,
05:05the person with the system, do they get punished in any way?
05:10There should be enforcement actions that can be taken if they fail to meet compliance obligations.
05:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:17I yield back.
05:18Thank the gentleman.
05:19From Montana, Mr. Downing is now recognized for five minutes.

Recommended