Corporate Transparency Act Takes a Knock-Out punch
0
Dan Gavin
Corporate Transparency Act Takes a Knock-Out punch

The city might have appeared completely grey if not for the scattered, omnipresent flecks of color plastered over walls, over windows, on screens and billboards, and in the minds of the populace—Party-issued posters of a familiar man with a thick, bushy mustache, captioned, “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.” George Orwell’s 1984 is, in essence, about control. The allegorical Party featured in the novel forces its followers into complete submission through surveillance and propaganda. Meanwhile, in the real world in 2024, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) has been described as Orwellian. It requires extensive disclosure of personal information about business owners, which some feel is an invasion of privacy and government overreach 

The CTA was enacted in January of 2021. It required over 32 million businesses with less than $5M in annual revenue to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The deadline to report is January 1, 2025—or was, rather. But on December 3, 2024, a Texas district court issued a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the CTA nationwide. The plaintiffs argued that the CTA compels speech and association, infringing on First Amendment protections. They also raised concerns about privacy violations under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure).  

The presiding Judge Amos Mazzant wrote, “ . . . the government is unable to provide the court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power. And even in the face of the deference that the court must give Congress, the CTA appears likely unconstitutional.” He added that corporate regulation has typically fallen under the states’ jurisdiction. 

At the time of the injunction, just over 8 million of the 32 million businesses had reported to FinCEN. Had the CTA not been put on hold, the remaining businesses would soon be subject to fines amounting up to $500 per day. The injunction is therefore critical to the livelihood of small businesses. The federal government has already appealed the case to the Fifth District Court. 

With the new administration beginning in January, it’s unclear what further steps may be taken to limit or halt enforcement of the CTA. Working jointly with Congress, the administration could revisit the actual contents of the law, amending transparency expectations or enforcement policies. They could deprioritize the funding of resources for enforcement. They might even manage to repeal the law altogether. 

If a chief goal of the CTA is, as FinCEN claims, to uncover money laundering schemes, the fact that one criterion for exemption is a prior year federal income tax reporting of over $5M seems odd. Any money-laundering company would need way more than $5M in revenue to conceal its crimes. Banks with revenue in the billions have been fined for money laundering in the past. In 2012, for instance, HSBC was fined $1.9B for laundering money for drug cartels and countries under sanctions. Later, in 2018, Dankse Bank was involved in a $230B money laundering scandal. And in 2020, Deutsche Bank was fined $150M for involvement in laundering activities related to Jeffrey Epstein.  

And it isn’t just banks. In my research, I still haven’t found one conviction for a business with less than $5M in revenue. The Unitech Group, a real estate firm, allegedly started and managed over 52 shell companies to launder money with a revenue of $36M. The Los Zetas Drug Cartel used an Oklahoma horse ranch and numerous shell companies to conceal and transfer millions of dollars of drug money to Mexico with revenues of over $13B. Other common businesses involved in money laundering include nightclubs and art dealers, again, with revenues well over $5M. 

You would think, then, that such businesses would be the focus of any transparency acts designed to prevent money laundering. Why does there need to be another huge government database containing private information, which the government has proven they cannot guard safely? (Think back to April 2024, to the Social Security Administration hack. 2.9 billion records were breached.)  

Was Judge Mazzant correct to describe the law as quasi-Orwellian? Is Big Brother trying to track the small business owner, infringing on his First and Fourth Amendment rights? 

Original article published in the Sierra Vista Herald here.

Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and the Money Mules 
0
Dan Gavin
Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and the Money Mules 

On a dry and pitch-dark night in early June of 1899, the tired old engineer of the Union Pacific Railroad train thought he saw a flicker up ahead. Since he was just outside of Wilcox, Wyoming, he assumed those two lanterns meant that the bridge ahead was washed out. He rolled the engine to a stop to find two masked men held the lanterns. With the “Hole-in-the-Wall” gang led by the famous duo of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid running loose in these parts, he knew this was trouble. Soon four more bandits joined the first where they found the safe. When the security guard refused to open the safe, they laid dynamite and blew it open. The team of bandits made off with $50K in cash plus jewelry, gold, and diamonds.  

Executing the heist was one thing, but getting away with it was another. Sundance handled the heist, and Butch handled the get-away. While Sundance’s team was busy cold-cocking engineers and blowing up safes, Butch was setting up a chain of horses to get the gang out of danger. They ran the horses until exhausted and picked up fresh horses, so they were far out of reach of any possible pursuing posse.  

Cybercrime today is a lot like the Wild West. The hackers are experts at executing the modern-day bank heist via the cyber realm. They skillfully slip into critical computers, crack passwords, and open up the victim’s bank account. Now how do they get the money out without being tracked? I’m glad that you asked. They use money mules. 

A money mule is someone who transfers the money from the victim’s account and wires the money into the hacker’s account. They are the middlemen of the operation. The money mules have no idea that they are actively participating in a criminal activity. They think they have a part-time job that pays well. Sometimes they call themselves transfer agents. Money mule recruiters tend to target people looking for part-time, remote employment, and the jobs usually involve little work other than receiving and forwarding bank transfers. They advertise just like any other recruiter. Initially the mules are given busy-work, menial tasks for the first week where the criminals weed out the bad workers. If they are late to work or lazy, they are fired. A money mule must be reliable. It could cost the organization a large amount of money.  

On a given day the mule would watch the “company’s” message board for instructions. It would say something like: “Good morning. Our client, Acme Corp, is sending you some money today. Please visit your bank, withdraw this payment in cash, and then wire the funds in equal payments, minus your commission, to these three individuals in Eastern Europe.”  

Evil Corp, a Russian hacker group, used money mules in their operations and is in the news again. There have been multiple arrests in the United Kingdom, France, and Spain. Some of the arrests were the unwitting money mules. The United States Department of Justice worked with European authorities as many of the Evil Corp victims were located in the United States.  

Evil Corp’s leader, Maksim Yakubets, is still on the loose. Just like the Wild West, there is a bounty on his head, $5M. His father-in-law, Eduard Benderskiy was named and sanctioned by Western authorities recently describing him as a protector of the Evil Corp crime organization.  

If you see a post on social media or an unexpected direct message with a promise of easy money by being a money transfer agent, you may want to reconsider that opportunity. It could land you in jail. If you are like Butch and Sundance, you could end up surrounded by the Bolivian army in South America. Don’t take the bait.  

How the World Ends 
0
Dan Gavin
How the World Ends 

In today’s vernacular you might say you’ve been “click-baited”. Or maybe not. I’ll let you be the judge. I guess it will all come down to how you interpreted “World” and “Ends”. If you immediately pictured the metaphorical “world” or the global context of “world” and if your definition of “ends” means “completion of current state and transformation to something better,” then this most likely will not be what you expected. My intent is to reveal something more sinister and far more depressing. But I beg you to hear me out. After all, it’s only about 5 minutes of your time. 

In 1942 concentration camp victims created massive amounts of counterfeit British pounds in an effort to collapse the British economy. This wasn’t the first use of currency counterfeiting in war though. The technique has been around a long time. The British attempted it during the Revolutionary War; Napoleon used it against the Italians; even during the 15th century Italy employed it.  

Why would one country counterfeit the currency of its enemy? Were they intending to go on a shopping spree after invading their foe? Oh no, that’s not it. it’s more nefarious than that. 

See, here’s a dirty little secret. And it’s one that the Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks around the world would rather you not find out. Counterfeiting leads to hyperinflation. The effect isn’t immediate. It takes some time to get all the money out into circulation. But once it does, the effect can be horrific on the economy.  

Hyperinflation manifests itself in rising prices. At the grocery store, at the gas pump, at the movie theater. Everywhere regular people do their daily transacting. When prices rise everywhere at about the same time, this is the effect of inflating the money supply. It’s not a collusion among all the grocers. It’s more a collusion among Central Bankers. It’s not rich farmers gouging you at the store. It’s the ultra-wealthy oligarchs who control everything. 

By flooding your enemy’s economy with counterfeit bills, you dilute the value of the currency until it becomes worthless. It’s pretty easy as the British found out at the end of World War II. The counterfeited bills were so good, they couldn’t tell the fake from the real bills. The only thing they could do was to stop printing the legitimate pounds and wait for the money to dissipate naturally.  

In the US we’ve been experiencing inflation for some time. Actually, the Fed has a target of 2% per year. It’s intentional. This time, it just got out of hand. Not from counterfeiting, but from legitimate money creation.  

Take a look at the St. Louis Fed website. Just do an internet search for “M2 money supply”. In 2020 the money supply exploded. Not counterfeit. It was Legal Tender. Because of the lag time from currency flooding the economy and inflation we are now feeling the effects. Thank you, US Congress. 

If you have been wondering maybe the US Congress doesn’t always have our best interest at heart, perhaps you are onto something. Think about this. Like you, I live in Sierra Vista. I also own a small business. It’s nothing of significance but I like to think I make a difference in the lives of the people I serve. It’s my small way of pursuing happiness in my life.  

In 2021 Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As a result, small businesses have to disclose all the details of their business ownership. We have to upload our business details into a government database. You know, the kind of database that is a major target of cyber criminals. The kind of database our government bureaucrats should protect but don’t. From a cybersecurity perspective, the data they require for compliance can easily be used in a social engineering attack to get YOUR information and to scam YOU. Even if you aren’t the small business owner. 

The funny thing about the CTA is that it affects only small businesses that almost exclusively do business locally. Corporations with over $5 million in annual revenue are exempt. The reason Congress claims they passed this legislation is to eliminate elicit money laundering. It’s supposed to be a way to financially suffocate terrorist cells. Most money laundering happens in companies handling greater than $5 million. The exemption is in the wrong direction. It will achieve the stated intent. It’s a shell game.  

Small businesses have little or no budget to hire cybersecurity professionals to protect their computers, networks and sensitive business data. They are the most vulnerable to cyber attacks like ransomware. so in reality what this Act will do is provide a convenient database containing millions of small businesses who characteristically have little or no cyber security controls protecting their data. All neatly packaged for any moderately skilled threat actor.  

Maybe it’s not the end of the world. Or maybe it is the end of the world as we have become accustomed to it. 

Is the world headed towards Central Bank Digital Currency? 
0
Dan Gavin
Is the world headed towards Central Bank Digital Currency? 

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), is the governing body for most of the world’s Central Banks, including the United States Federal Reserve Bank. The BIS plays a pivotal role in the global financial system and has been actively involved in discussions and research regarding Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). One of the potential applications of CBDCs, as highlighted by the BIS and other financial authorities, is to enhance the monitoring and regulation of financial transactions to combat illicit activities such as money laundering, terrorism financing, and tax evasion. Here’s how CBDCs could facilitate this: 

Digital Traceability: CBDCs inherently possess a digital footprint, allowing transactions to be recorded on a blockchain ledger (think of it like an accountant’s ledger book), which could be either centralized or distributed. This digital traceability means that unlike cash transactions, which are anonymous and untraceable, CBDC transactions can be monitored and audited by the issuing central bank and other regulatory authorities. This makes it more challenging for individuals or entities to engage in illicit financial activities. 

Enhanced Regulatory Oversight: With CBDCs, central banks and financial regulatory bodies could have real-time or near-real-time access to transaction data. This capability would significantly enhance regulatory oversight, making it easier to identify suspicious transactions as they occur and take swift action. Advanced analytics and AI algorithms could be employed to detect patterns indicative of money laundering or other forms of financial crime. 

Implementation of Compliance Checks: CBDC platforms can be designed to automatically enforce regulatory compliance. For instance, transactions exceeding certain thresholds can be programmed to require additional verification before they are processed. Similarly, transactions involving entities on watchlists or sanctions lists can be automatically flagged or blocked, ensuring compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regulations. 

Reduction in Anonymity: While the reduction in anonymity might raise privacy concerns, from a regulatory perspective, it limits the ability of criminals to operate undetected within the financial system. CBDCs can be designed to strike a balance between privacy and transparency, ensuring that while individual privacy is respected, there is enough transparency to deter and detect illicit activities. 

Global Cooperation and Cross-Border Payments: CBDCs can also facilitate improved cooperation between countries on financial oversight. With CBDCs, cross-border payments can become more transparent and faster, reducing the time window that criminals must move illicit funds across jurisdictions. Enhanced data sharing and cooperation between central banks and international regulatory bodies could further strengthen global efforts to combat financial crime. 

It’s important to note that while CBDCs offer these potential benefits for combating illicit financial activities, the implementation of such systems must carefully consider privacy rights and data protection laws. The challenge lies in designing a CBDC system that maximizes the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and crime prevention without infringing on individual privacy and freedoms. 

On October 19, 2020, the BIS General Manager, Agustin Carstens, called for “a unified programmable ledger in a public-private partnership”. He was talking about CBDC. Think of it as Bitcoin (blockchain) but without the privacy blockchain currencies afford. Mr. Carstens further stated, “for example, we don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today, we don’t know who is using a 1000 peso bill today. A key difference with the CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”  

So, in essence, Mr. Carstens is talking about a bank account with digital money which can be programmed for specific use. For example, the entity which controls the digital $100 in a given bank account could put an expiration date on the money thus ensuring it will be spent by a specific date. Or it could be programmed so it can only be spent on food, or rent, or gasoline. This programmability is only limited by the imagination of the controlling entity. 

Whether this is a good thing or not is conjecture. Either the BIS will restrict itself to a reasonable amount of control over every digital dollar and allow citizens of each nation to continue private individual control of their own private earnings or they won’t. 

The original article from the Sierra Vista Herald can be found here.

Copyright © 2025 CyberEye Call us at: ‪(520)224-8981