Cryptocurrency Laundering
Legal framework (U.S. focus, widely relevant principles)
The main federal statutes used in the U.S. are:
18 U.S.C. § 1956 — criminalizes laundering of monetary instruments (movement/transfer/concealment of proceeds with knowledge they’re unlawful and intent to promote/avoid reporting).
18 U.S.C. § 1957 — criminalizes knowingly conducting a monetary transaction in criminally derived property > $10,000.
Forfeiture statutes (e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 853, 18 U.S.C. § 982) allow the government to seize proceeds and substitute assets.
Money‑transmitter licensing laws and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/AML rules (FinCEN guidance) are also commonly invoked against cryptocurrency businesses and operators who fail to register or implement AML/KYC.
Key mens rea issues
Convictions often turn on knowledge or willful blindness that property were criminal proceeds or that the service assisted criminal activity. Courts allow proof of knowledge through circumstantial evidence (suspicious patterns, large cash amounts, evasive conduct).
Common laundering techniques in crypto
Mixers / tumblers (coinjoin, centralized mixing services): combine many users’ coins to break on‑chain linkability.
Privacy coins (Monero, Zcash) — built‑in privacy features make tracing harder.
Chain hopping / cross‑chain bridges — moving value across chains to complicate tracing.
Peel chains / multiple wallets — many small transfers to obfuscate the source.
OTC brokers / exchanges / P2P — convert crypto to cash through third parties; exploit weak KYC exchanges.
Structuring — many small conversions below reporting thresholds.
Use of intermediaries in different jurisdictions — exploit jurisdictions lacking enforcement or willing to shield operators.
How investigators respond
Blockchain analytics (clustering, heuristics, pattern matching).
Subpoenas, mutual legal assistance treaties, exchange records, IP logs, and wallet seizures.
Charging operators (mixers/exchanges) for operating unlicensed money transmitting businesses and for laundering by aiding/abetting.
Case 1 — United States v. Ross William Ulbricht (Silk Road) (federal prosecutions culminated in 2015)
Facts (high level)
Ross Ulbricht was the founder/operator of Silk Road, an online darknet marketplace where users bought and sold illegal drugs and other contraband using Bitcoin. The government alleged Ulbricht created and ran “Dread Pirate Roberts,” earning substantial Bitcoin commissions/fees.
Charges
Ulbricht was charged with multiple offenses including conspiracy to commit money laundering, narcotics trafficking, computer hacking, and operating a criminal enterprise.
Legal issues and holdings
The jury convicted Ulbricht on money‑laundering–related counts (among others). The money‑laundering theory was that Ulbricht intentionally collected and transferred proceeds from illegal sales—Bitcoin counted as “monetary instruments”/“property” for purposes of the statutes at issue.
The case emphasized that control of proceeds (administrative/escrow accounts, commission fees) supports laundering charges.
In sentencing, the court imposed life imprisonment (sentence controversy followed on appeal; many procedural issues were litigated).
Significance
Landmark for showing how traditional criminal statutes (money laundering, conspiracy) apply when proceeds are denominated in crypto.
Demonstrated the government’s ability to trace and seize Bitcoin (they seized a large amount of Silk Road BTC in 2013).
Practical lesson: operating an escrow/fee mechanism for a marketplace that enables crime is criminal exposure.
Case 2 — United States v. Charlie Shrem (2014)
Facts
Charlie Shrem was an early Bitcoin entrepreneur and a founder of BitInstant (a Bitcoin exchange/service). He was implicated in selling bitcoins to users of Silk Road and in handling funds generated from illicit activity.
Charges
Shrem pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the operation of an unlicensed money‑transmitting business (and related counts). He also faced allegations connected to money laundering (in some filings and public accounts).
Legal issues and holdings
Operating as an unlicensed money transmitter: Shrem’s conduct—facilitating bitcoin transfers for users without proper registration and knowingly dealing with users linked to illegal markets—was treated as operating a money‑transmitting business outside regulatory controls.
Mens rea & willful blindness: The government argued Shrem knew some transactions funded criminal activity; his plea reflected acceptance of culpability for failing to prevent or reporting such transactions.
Sentencing: Shrem served time in federal prison and was fined and forfeited assets.
Significance
Early test of applying money‑transmitter concept and AML requirements to crypto businesses.
Demonstrated enforcement tool: charging regulatory violations (unlicensed money transmitting) alongside laundering conduct to reach operators who facilitate criminal use.
Case 3 — The BTC‑e / Alexander Vinnik prosecutions (cross‑jurisdictional, arrests 2017 onward)
Facts (summary across jurisdictions)
BTC‑e was an exchange allegedly used heavily by criminals to launder bitcoin. Alexander Vinnik, alleged operator/administrator, was arrested in Greece in 2017 on U.S. and other requests. Various countries sought extradition on charges of money laundering, operating an unlicensed exchange, and facilitating cybercrime proceeds (including funds linked to Mt. Gox theft).
Charges & procedural posture
Multiple jurisdictions (U.S., France, Russia) sought custody at different times; the legal proceedings were complex and multijurisdictional.
The U.S. and other prosecutors alleged Vinnik and BTC‑e processed hundreds of millions in illicit BTC, intentionally providing a service to launder criminal proceeds.
Legal issues and outcomes (high‑level; note cross‑border complexity)
Extradition and forum selection: Illustrated the diplomatic and legal complexity when multiple states want to prosecute conduct that routes through international servers and actors.
Money laundering via exchange: Prosecutors relied on records showing unusual transaction patterns, links to known hacks/thefts, and internal communications to assert knowledge and intent.
In some proceedings (notably France), Vinnik faced conviction/penalties (details varied by country and time). The exact disposition in each jurisdiction requires checking recent dockets.
Significance
Demonstrated investigators’ ability to pursue exchange operators even when hosted offshore, and the use of international cooperation to bring charges.
Emphasized that exchanges that turn a blind eye to illicit finance face criminal exposure.
(I’m summarizing the multi‑country litigation from memory through 2024; exact conviction dates and sentencing in each country should be verified if you need precise citations.)
Case 4 — United States v. Larry Dean Harmon (a/k/a “CoinMixer” / Helix) (indictment and prosecution 2020–2021)
Facts
Larry Harmon was alleged to have owned/operated Helix, a centralized Bitcoin mixing service that accepted bitcoins, mixed them, and returned different coins to users to obfuscate provenance. The government tied Helix to the laundering of funds originating from darknet marketplaces and hacks.
Charges
Harmon was indicted on conspiracy to commit money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business; the government also sought forfeiture of funds and seized servers/wallets.
Legal issues and holdings
Facilitator liability: The indictment argued that running a service that deliberately obscured transaction history and routinely accepted transactions tied to criminal activity constituted active participation in laundering.
Willful intent: Prosecutors alleged Harmon intentionally marketed the mixer to criminals and structured Helix to evade AML controls.
Harmon eventually pleaded guilty (or reached resolution) in late 2021 or thereabouts and faced sentencing; the case included asset forfeiture.
Significance
One of the first high‑profile U.S. prosecutions targeting a centralized mixer operator, signaling that operators of obfuscation services can be charged like other facilitators of money laundering.
Reinforced that marketing/services directed to criminals is powerful circumstantial evidence of unlawful intent.
(If you need the exact plea date and sentence, I can’t fetch it live now — check the federal docket or news sources for the final sentencing terms.)
Case 5 — United States v. “Bitcoin Fog” / Roman Sterlingov (arrest 2023; charged in U.S.) — recent example of a mixer prosecution
Facts
Bitcoin Fog was a long‑running Bitcoin mixing service allegedly used to launder funds for darknet markets and cybercriminals. In 2023 law enforcement arrested Roman Sterlingov in Europe on charges that he operated Bitcoin Fog and laundered millions.
Charges & legal significance
Charged with money laundering conspiracy and operating a money‑transmitting business without registration; the complaint alleged the service processed criminal proceeds over many years.
The case is another example of targeting the operator of a mixer rather than only its users.
Significance
Shows continuing enforcement trend: mixers and privacy‑enhancing services face criminal exposure, particularly where operators allegedly provided specialized infrastructure to conceal criminal proceeds.
Also highlights cross‑border arrests and the use of mutual legal assistance/extradition.
(This is a recent matter as of my last update; some procedural outcomes may have evolved after June 2024.)
Legal doctrines, evidentiary tactics, and defenses used in these prosecutions
Prosecutorial toolkit
Tracing on‑chain: Follow coin flows, clustering heuristics, and ties to exchanges to identify conversion to fiat.
Exchange subpoenas: Tie wallet addresses to identities via KYC records.
Communications and server logs: Demonstrate operators’ knowledge (administrative emails, IP logs).
Forfeiture & seizure: Freeze wallets/exchange accounts and move to seize proceeds.
Unlicensed money transmitter charges: Easier to prove in many cases — proof that the defendant provided money‑transmitting services without registration and failed AML obligations.
Typical defenses
Lack of knowledge: Claiming not to know funds were illicit (no mens rea).
Service neutrality: Claiming the service was lawful and available to anyone; arguing First Amendment or privacy arguments (rarely persuasive against money laundering where intent or willful blindness can be proven).
Insufficient nexus: Arguing that crypto is not “monetary instruments” (courts have generally rejected this; crypto treated as property/monetary instrument for many statutes).
Technical complexity: Arguing that tracing heuristics are unreliable (sometimes successful as to specific links but rarely preventing all charges if there’s corroborating evidence).
Practical takeaways for practitioners and policy makers
Operators are accountable: Running a mixer, exchange, or marketplace without AML controls — and especially if you knowingly assist criminal users — creates serious criminal risk.
Knowledge/willful blindness is key: Prosecutors often build cases on behavior showing deliberate ignorance (e.g., no KYC, advertising to darknet users, structured payouts).
Blockchain tracing is powerful but not infallible: It often provides the backbone for investigations, but the government typically combines it with traditional law enforcement tools.
International cooperation matters: Many of the biggest cases involved arrests and prosecutions across multiple countries.
Regulatory overlay: Beyond criminal charges, businesses face civil penalties, license denials, and regulatory enforcement (FinCEN, SEC in some contexts).
If you want primary sources / precise citations
I didn’t include external links here because you asked for no external links and I can’t browse for live updates. If you’d like, I can:
Draft a short research checklist of the specific documents to look up (complaints, indictments, sentencing memos, key appellate opinions) and the likely dockets to consult (e.g., SDNY docket numbers for Silk Road and Shrem).
Or summarize one of the above cases even more deeply (e.g., the Ulbricht trial record or the Shrem plea agreement) using only my stored knowledge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments