| > I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets. The link is explained in the post: in both instances, a human is the prime mover. No court in the world draws a distinction between "Joe kills Bob" and "Joe builds a Bob-killing robot that kills Bob." Similarly, no court in the world is likely to draw a distinction between "North Korea launders money" and "North Korea uses an autonomous program to launder money." It simply isn't relevant. > Similarly, merely using a technique to obfuscate the origin of my own money is not enough to claim I am a criminal. I can do similar with gold coins and paper cash, and in high dollar amounts. To be clear: if attempt to obfuscate your cash transactions by structuring them beneath the limits that trigger CTR reporting, you're committing a crime. You can have reasonable opinions about whether that ought to be a crime, but it is absolutely not legal in the current regulatory scheme to intentionally avoid your reporting requirements. > Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd. We have a precise, material example of Tornado enabling a specific crime. That crime is the reason it's on the OFAC list, and it's stated in clear, precise language on the Treasury's site. Again: you can claim that Tornado is an instrument, and anything can be used to commit crime, but it is a matter of fact that Tornado was both used to commit crimes and made committing those crimes easier than they otherwise would have been (by sidestepping financial regulatory frameworks). |
I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.