Imposition of Special Measure Prohibiting the Transmittal of Funds Involving Bitzlato, 3919-3926 [2023-01189]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the RECA Trust Fund shall terminate on
the date that is 2 years after the law’s
date of enactment. In addition, a claim
to which RECA applies shall be barred
unless the claim is filed not later than
2 years after the date of enactment of the
Extension Act. Accordingly, the RECA
Trust Fund terminates on June 8, 2024.
The statute of limitations for new RECA
claims tolls on that date. The Extension
Act is silent regarding whether the
RECA Trust Fund will be available for
meritorious claims submitted at the
statutory filing deadline.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Statement of Policy
The Department is publishing this
document to articulate its policy that all
timely filed, meritorious RECA claims
against the RECA Trust Fund will be
paid, consistent with the requirements
under RECA. Several stakeholders have
expressed concern that the termination
of the RECA Trust Fund on the deadline
for claims may render it unavailable to
pay meritorious claims. Once a claim is
filed with the Department, RECA
imposes statutory obligations for the
Department to adjudicate the claim
within 12 months, and issue payment
on any approved claims within 6 weeks
of approval. RECA Sec. 6(d). These
statutory obligations will require the
RECA Trust Fund to remain available
until the Department has determined
entitlement for all timely filed claims,
including claims filed on the statutory
filing deadline.
In addition, several stakeholders have
noted that the revised statutory filing
deadline, June 8, 2024, is a Saturday.
The Department shall deem claims that
bear a date of June 10, 2024, on the
postmark or stamp by another
commercial carrier, timely filed upon
their receipt by the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program. This policy is
consistent with methods for computing
time set forth at Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(a), and with standard
agency practice where a deadline falls
on a weekend or holiday establishing
the next business day as the deadline for
submissions. The postmark requirement
is consistent with the Department’s
existing procedures for submitting
claims at 28 CFR 79.71(a) and (b),
requiring a claim to be submitted in
writing on a standard claim form and
mailed to the address of the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Program. In
addition, this policy allows claimants to
affirmatively establish the timely filing
of their claim by obtaining a postmark
or other mailing date stamp consistent
with the filing deadline.
The regulation at § 79.71(a) requires
that claims be mailed to the Department.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
Accordingly, the Department will not
accept electronically submitted claims.
Claims bearing a date on and after
June 11, 2024, as indicated by the
postmark or stamp by another
commercial carrier, shall be returned to
the submitting party due to untimely
filing. Claims returned due to untimely
filing will include a letter from the
Radiation Exposure Compensation
Program indicating the Department is
barred by statute from reviewing the
claim or awarding compensation.
This policy applies to all claims
received at the filing deadline,
including the resubmission of a
previously denied claim under Sec. 8(b)
of RECA. Resubmissions of previously
denied claims bearing a postmark or
stamp by another commercial carrier
dated June 11, 2024, or later shall be
returned due to untimely filing.
For timely filed claims in which a
share of the compensation award is held
in trust pending documentation to
establish the eligibility of a potential
beneficiary, such shares of
compensation shall be deemed rejected
consistent with 28 CFR 79.75(b) if
sufficient documentation to establish
the eligibility of the potential
beneficiary is not received by June 10,
2024, or within the 12-month
determination period provided by the
Act, whichever falls later.
This document is intended to inform
the public of the Department’s policy
regarding procedures for filing claims at
the statutory deadline. The Department
will post this document to its RECA
website at www.justice.gov/civil/
common/reca, and continue to
announce this policy at outreach events
and in communications with claimants,
counsel, and support groups.
This document supersedes the
Department’s notification of Procedures
for Claims Submitted at the Statutory
Filing Deadline, 85 FR 79118 (Dec. 9,
2020).
Dated: January 12, 2023.
C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Jr.,
Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division.
[FR Doc. 2023–00865 Filed 1–20–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–12–P
PO 00000
3919
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Part 1010
RIN 1506–AB42
Imposition of Special Measure
Prohibiting the Transmittal of Funds
Involving Bitzlato
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
ACTION: Order.
AGENCY:
FinCEN is issuing an order,
pursuant to the Combating Russian
Money Laundering Act, as amended by
the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2022, to prohibit certain
transmittals of funds (as defined in this
order) by any covered financial
institution involving Bitzlato Limited
(Bitzlato), a financial institution
operating outside of the United States
determined to be of a primary money
laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance.
DATES: This action is effective February
1, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
FinCEN Resource Center, 1–800–767–
2825 or electronically at frc@fincen.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Summary of Order
This order: (1) sets forth FinCEN’s
determination that Bitzlato Limited
(Bitzlato), a virtual asset service
provider (VASP) incorporated in the
Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of
China (Hong Kong), is a financial
institution operating outside of the
United States that is of primary money
laundering concern 1 in connection with
Russian illicit finance; and (2) prohibits
certain transmittals of funds by any
domestic financial institution or
involving Bitzlato by any covered
financial institution. Bitzlato, a
convertible virtual currency (CVC)
exchanger (a type of VASP) with
significant operations in Russia that
offers exchange and Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
services, is a financial institution of
primary money laundering concern in
connection with Russian illicit finance,
namely, through: (1) its facilitation of
deposits and funds transfers by Russian
1 The application of FinCEN’s authorities in this
order is specific only to section 9714 of the
Combating Russian Money Laundering Act. It is not
intended to reflect the applicability of, or
obligations under, any provision of the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA) or its implementing regulations,
and FinCEN has not considered the extent to which
Bitzlato does business in the United States.
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
3920
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ransomware groups 2 or affiliates, such
as Conti; 3 and (2) its facilitation of
transactions with Russian darknet
markets on behalf of both darknet
customers and darknet vendors.
II. Background
A. Statutory Provisions
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Section 9714(a) of the Combating
Russian Money Laundering Act, as
amended by section 6106(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2022 (hereafter section
9714(a)),4 provides, in relevant part, that
should the Secretary of the Treasury
determine reasonable grounds exist for
concluding one or more financial
institutions operating outside of the
United States is of primary money
laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance, the Secretary, by
order, regulation, or otherwise as
permitted by law may require domestic
financial institutions and domestic
financial agencies to take 1 or more of
the special measures described in 31
U.S.C. 5318A(b) 5 or prohibit, or impose
conditions upon, certain transmittals of
funds (to be defined by the Secretary) by
any domestic financial institution or
domestic financial agency, if such
transmittal of funds involves any such
institution, The authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary)
to administer both section 9714(a) and
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) has been
delegated to FinCEN.6
2 A ransomware ‘‘strain’’ is the specific kind of
malware that encrypts or exfiltrates data from a
victim in order to perpetrate cyber extortion. The
developers and owners of a strain are referred to as
a ransomware ‘‘gang’’ or ‘‘group,’’ and may use a
strain for their own extortion activities or lease
access to the strain to other illicit actors (affiliates)
for use in a ‘‘Ransomware as a Service’’ (RaaS)
model. As a specific strain becomes less effective
or more detectable, the group may develop a new
strain to continue its business. For example, ‘‘Conti
v2’’ is the second strain developed by the Conti
ransomware group, the first of which is ‘‘Conti.’’ A
ransomware actor who has used both the Conti
strain and the Phobos strain in their attacks is both
a Conti and a Phobos affiliate.
3 As noted above, in fn. 3, Conti refers to both a
criminal group, the eponymous ransomware strains
it spawned, and other affiliated actors.
4 Section 9714 (as amended) can be found in a
note to 31 U.S.C. 5318A.
5 31 U.S.C. 5318A of the United States Code
grants the Secretary the authority, upon finding that
reasonable grounds exist for concluding that one or
more financial institutions operating outside of the
United States is of primary money laundering
concern, to require domestic financial institutions
and domestic financial agencies to take certain
‘‘special measures.’’
6 Pursuant to Treasury Order 180–01 (January 14,
2020), the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury
to administer the BSA, including but not limited to
31 U.S.C. 5318A, has been delegated to the Director
of FinCEN. On August 11, 2022, and in accordance
with Treasury Order 101–05 (September 20, 2022)
and 31 U.S.C. 321(b), Treasury’s Under Secretary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
Special measures one through four of
section 5318A(b), commonly known as
section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
describe additional recordkeeping,
information collection, and reporting
requirements that the Secretary may
impose on covered U.S. financial
institutions. The fifth special measure,
codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5),
allows the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, and the Chairman of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, to prohibit, or impose
conditions upon, the opening or
maintaining in the United States of
correspondent or payable-through
accounts by any domestic financial
institution or domestic financial agency
for, or on behalf of, a foreign banking
institution, if such correspondent
account or payable-through account
involves one or more financial
institutions operating outside of the
United States that the Secretary has
found to be of primary money
laundering concern.
B. Bitzlato
According to its website, Bitzlato is a
‘‘modern company working in the field
of blockchain technologies and
[CVC].’’ 7 It was previously known as
ChangeBot. Bitzlato is a Russianaffiliated CVC exchanger—a category of
VASP—that offers exchange and P2P
services, allowing users to exchange
Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Bitcoin Cash
(BCH), Litecoin (LTC), Dash (DASH),
Tether (USDT), Monolith Ruble (MCR)
and Dogecoin (DOGE) without
intermediaries and hidden
commissions.
As set out on its website, Bitzlato is
an online platform that provides
exchange and P2P services. Through its
exchange services, Bitzlato organizes
‘‘trading for digital assets, their
derivatives and other market
instruments’’ with ‘‘[t]rading conducted
via standard contracts or orders.’’ 8 In
parallel, through its P2P services,
Bitzlato operates as ‘‘an advertising
board for digital assets traders’’ offering
wallet, escrow and other related services
for Terrorism & Financial Intelligence re-delegated
to the Director of FinCEN the authority of the
Secretary under section 9714.
7 Unless noted otherwise, all references to
Bitzlato’s official website, web page, or policies are
sourced from pages and links accessed via https://
bitzlato.com, including https://bitzlato.com/termsof-service-bitzlato/, https://bitzlato.com/antimoney-laundering-policy-and-know-your-clientpolicy, and https://bitzlato.com/knowledgebase/
how_to_buy_cryptocurrency/ (last accessed January
2023).
8 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/terms-of-servicebitzlato/ (last accessed January 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
associated with P2P exchanges.9
Bitzlato further notes that its P2P
services include arranging ‘‘storage of
digital assets . . . to ensure and
guarantee the execution of transactions
between registered users’’ and that it
retains the ability to ‘‘freeze [a user’s]
digital asset wallet,’’ indicating that
Bitzlato has custody of its users’ digital
wallets and the CVC held in those
accounts.10
In light of those activities, Bitzlato is
a financial institution within the
meaning of section 9714(a). Section
9714(a) does not expressly define the
term ‘‘financial institution.’’ However,
FinCEN has long defined that term to
apply to foreign and domestic ‘‘money
transmitters’’, including persons that
accept and transmit value that
substitutes for currency, such as CVC.11
CVC exchangers, such as Bitzlato, are
‘‘money transmitters,’’ and therefore,
financial institutions within the
meaning of section 9714(a).
Based on public and non-public
information available to FinCEN,
Bitzlato operates outside the United
States and, although identified as
‘‘registered under the laws of Hong
Kong,’’ Bitzlato has significant ties to
and connections with Russia. Under
‘‘Section 1. Terms and Definitions’’ in
Bitzlato’s ‘‘Terms of Service’’ page on its
website, Bitzlato is identified as
‘‘registered under the laws of Hong
Kong’’ and ‘‘located at Unit 617, 6/F,
131–132 Connaught Road West, Solo
workshops, Hong Kong.’’ 12 A review of
publicly available material, however,
shows that Bitzlato’s actual location of
operation, its employees, and a job
opening are in Russia, with job
descriptions written in Russian. Indeed,
a study performed by a blockchain
analysis company expressly identifies
Bitzlato as having a presence in Moscow
City (the financial district of Moscow,
Russia) during the period between 2019
and 2021,13 and FinCEN has found no
information on current or former
employees or positions in Hong Kong.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 See 31 U.S.C. 5312; 31 CFR 1010.100(t)(3),
1010.100(ff), 1010.605(f)(iv); see also FIN–2019–
G001, ‘‘Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to
Certain Business Models Involving Convertible
Virtual Currencies’’ (May 9, 2019); FIN–2013–G001,
‘‘Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons
Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual
Currencies’’ (March 18, 2013).
12 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/terms-of-servicebitzlato/ (last accessed January 2022).
13 Chainalysis, ‘‘The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,’’
at 128 (February 2022).
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
III. Finding That Bitzlato Is a Financial
Institution Operating Outside of the
United States of Primary Money
Laundering Concern in Connection
With Russian Illicit Finance
Based on public and non-public
information available to FinCEN,
FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds
exist for concluding that Bitzlato, a P2P
CVC exchanger with significant
operations in Russia, is a financial
institution of primary money laundering
concern in connection with Russian
illicit finance, namely, through: (1) its
facilitation of deposits and funds
transfers by Russian ransomware groups
or affiliates, such as Conti; and (2) its
facilitation of transactions with Russian
darknet markets on behalf of both
darknet customers and darknet vendors.
A. Bitzlato Is Used To Facilitate
Processing and Laundering Proceeds
From Ransomware Attacks
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
1. Background on Ransomware
Ransomware is a form of malicious
software (malware) used by an attacker
to block access to a computer system or
data, often by encrypting data or
programs on information technology
(IT) systems. Its purpose is to extort
ransom payments from victims in
exchange for decrypting the
information, restoring victims’ access to
their systems or data, and/or not
disclosing or destroying data or
programs on IT systems. Ransomware
payments are made most often via CVC,
which are preferred by ransomware
attackers for their ability to obscure the
attackers’ identities, thus aiding in the
attackers’ ability to launder their
criminal proceeds and continue
attacking victims.14
According to open source reporting,
ransomware attacks have increased
exponentially over the last several years,
with an estimated 300 million
attempted attacks in the first half of
2021 alone, 15 including attacks against
U.S. entities and institutions. These
attacks have destabilized private
businesses, healthcare facilities, school
districts, and critical infrastructure—
including domestic energy distribution,
such as in the 2021 Colonial Pipeline
attack, 16 and food supply chains, such
14 See, e.g., FIN–2021–A004, ‘‘Advisory on
Ransomware and the Use of the Financial System
to Facilitate Ransom Payments’’ (November 8,
2021), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/
default/files/advisory/2021-11-08/
FinCEN%20Ransomware%20Advisory_FINAL_
508_.pdf.
15 ‘‘Mid-year Update 2021 Cyber Threat Report:
Cyber threat intelligence for navigating today’s
business reality,’’ Sonicwall.
16 Bogage, Jacob. ‘‘Colonial Pipeline CEO says
paying $4.4 million ransom was the right thing to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
as in the 2021 JBS meatpacking plant
attack.17 The U.S. government has long
engaged on efforts to counter the threat
of ransomware, and on April 1, 2015,
the President issued Executive Order
(E.O.) 13694 (‘‘Blocking the Property of
Certain Persons Engaging in Significant
Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities’’), in
which he declared a national emergency
to deal with the threat of the ‘‘increasing
prevalence and severity of malicious
cyber-enabled activities originating
from, or directed by persons located, in
whole or in substantial part, outside the
United States [that] constitute an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy, and
economy of the United States.’’ 18
In 2021, roughly 74 percent of
ransomware revenue, or over $400
million worth of CVC, went to strains
highly likely to be affiliated with
Russian organizations. Blockchain
analysis combined with web traffic data
further revealed that most of the
extorted funds from the ransomware
attacks were laundered through services
primarily catering to Russian users.19
The media have reported on banks
and stock exchanges being targets for
ransomware attacks.20 Further, the U.S.
financial system is being used to send
significant amounts of U.S. funds as
ransom payments to foreign actors—
both cybercriminals and nation-state
actors. Consequently, ransomware
attacks are a direct threat to the U.S.
economy, to its citizens, and to its
national security. Moreover, the threat
of ransomware is not limited to the
United States, as ransomware attacks are
on the rise across the globe, posing a
significant threat to governments,
businesses, and institutions on several
continents.
Although ransomware actors and
darknet markets are not always stateaffiliated, the notorious ransomware
group Conti has significant connections
to Russia and pledged allegiance to
Russia on February 25, 2022. Further,
the Hydra darknet market almost
entirely catered to Russian customers
and illicit goods and service providers
before it was shut down by law
enforcement in April 2022. The illicit
gains from ransomware attacks can often
be traced back to Russian-affiliated
do for the country,’’ Washington Post (May 19,
2021).
17 ‘‘Meatpacker JBS says it paid equivalent of $11
mln in ransomware attack,’’ Reuters (June 10, 2021).
18 This E.O. was amended on December 28, 2016,
pursuant to E.O. 13757.
19 Chainalysis, ‘‘The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,’’
at 123 (February 2022).
20 Egan, Matt. ‘‘Banks and stock exchanges are
even bigger targets for ransomware attacks,’’ CNN
(May 12, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3921
exchanges and darknet markets,
representing the laundering of victim
payments by Russian and Russiaaffiliated actors through Russian and
Russia-affiliated services. As such,
ransomware is a conduit for Russian
illicit finance.
2. Bitzlato’s Ransomware Connections
Bitzlato plays a critical role in
facilitating transactions for the Conti
ransomware group and other global
ransomware actors, including actors that
operate out of Russia. As a result,
FinCEN assesses that Bitzlato serves as
a VASP that ultimately enables the
profitability of ransomware attacks and,
at least in the case of Conti, advances
the political and economic
destabilization interests of the
Government of Russia.
a. Conti Ransomware Group
Conti, a notorious Ransomware-as-aService (RaaS) group and the
eponymous strains of ransomware it
offers as a service to affiliated criminals
for their use, emerged in December
2019.21 Although most such groups take
steps to obfuscate their connections to
Russia and Russian illicit finance, Conti
did not. To the contrary, on February
25, 2022, Conti pledged allegiance to the
Government of Russia and vowed to
retaliate against international state
actors for their support of the
Government of Ukraine amidst the
Russian invasion.22 Further, a cache of
60,000 leaked chat messages and files
from Conti appears to link Conti to the
Russian state, including the Russian
Federal Security Service.23
FinCEN has documented numerous
transactions between Conti-associated
CVC addresses and Bitzlato.
b. Other Ransomware Groups
Separately, based on blockchain
analysis, other ransomware groups have
used Bitzlato to facilitate transactions
involving ransomware, including
ransomware groups based in or linked
to Russia. For example, blockchain
analysis has identified transactions
involving Bitzlato and: (1) Chatex, a
VASP designated by Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for
facilitating financial transactions for
ransomware actors; and (2) the RaaS
group DarkSide, a Russian-speaking
21 Abrams, Lawrence. ‘‘Conti ransomware shows
signs of being Ryuk’s successor,’’ Bleeping
Computer (July 9, 2020).
22 Bing, Christopher. ‘‘Russia-based ransomware
group Conti issues warning to Kremlin foes,’’
Reuters (February 25, 2022).
23 Burgess, Matt. ‘‘After Declaring Support for
Russian Invasion, Conti Ransomware Gang Hit With
Data Leak,’’ Wired (March 18, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
3922
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
group responsible for the Colonial
Pipeline Company ransomware incident
in May 2021.24 25 Based on blockchain
analysis, 76 Bitzlato deposit addresses
received bitcoin (BTC) worth over
$300,000 attributed to Chatex. On
November 8, 2021, OFAC designated
Chatex, pursuant to E.O. 13694, as
amended, for its part in facilitating
funds transfers for ransomware actors
and for providing material support to
SUEX OTC, S.R.O. (SUEX). SUEX, a
CVC exchanger located in Moscow City,
Russia, was itself designated by OFAC
on September 21, 2021, pursuant to E.O.
13694, as amended, for providing
material support to the threat posed by
criminal ransomware actors.26
According to media reporting in 2021,
the RaaS group DarkSide, a Russianspeaking group responsible for the
Colonial Pipeline Company ransomware
incident in May 2021, along with its
clientele, also used Bitzlato.27 In
addition, the Phobos ransomware group
and its affiliates have made at least
1,063 direct transfers of funds in the
form of BTC to at least 76 Bitzlato
deposit addresses identified as having
received funds from Chatex,
representing 414.84 BTC worth
approximately $3 million.
According to public reporting, a
spokesperson for Bitzlato denied that it
worked with any ransomware criminals
and claimed it was not acquainted with
an organization called DarkSide.28
However, even if Bitzlato is not
knowingly affiliated with DarkSide or
other ransomware groups, FinCEN
assesses that it provides an enabling
environment for such ransomware
criminals to utilize its services to cash
out ransomware proceeds due to its
minimal Anti-Money Laundering/
Countering the Financing of Terrorism
(AML/CFT) protocols, solidifying its
reputation as a go-to CVC exchanger for
such groups.29
24 Kramer, Andrew; Schwirtz, Michael; and
Troianovski, Anton. ‘‘Secret Chats Show How
Cybergang Became a Ransomware Powerhouse,’’
N.Y. Times (June 3, 2021).
25 Department of State, ‘‘Reward Offers for
Information to Bring DarkSide Ransomware Variant
Co-Conspirators to Justice,’’ (November 4, 2021),
https://www.state.gov/reward-offers-forinformation-to-bring-darkside-ransomware-variantco-conspirators-to-justice.
26 Department of the Treasury, ‘‘Treasury
Continues to Counter Ransomware as Part of
Whole-of-Government Effort; Sanctions
Ransomware Operators and Virtual Currency
Exchange’’ (November 8, 2021), https://
home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471.
27 Brewster, Thomas. ‘‘As Ransomware Hackers
Sit On Millions In Extorted Money, America’s
Military Is Urged To Hack Back,’’ Forbes (June 5,
2021).
28 Id.
29 See Section III.C–D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
B. Bitzlato Is Used To Facilitate Darknet
Markets and Scams
In addition to receiving ransomware
proceeds, Bitzlato’s receiving and
sending transactional activity shows a
significant connection to counterparties
associated with other suspected illicit
activities, such as darknet markets and
scams with ties to and operations in
Russia.
Approximately two-thirds of
Bitzlato’s top receiving and sending
counterparties are associated with
darknet markets or scams. For example,
Bitzlato’s top three receiving
counterparties, by total amount of BTC
received between May 2018 and
September 2022 were: (1) Binance, a
VASP; (2) the Russia-connected darknet
market Hydra; and (3) the alleged
Russia-based Ponzi scheme
‘‘TheFiniko.’’ Similarly, Bitzlato’s top
three sending counterparties, by total
amount of BTC sent between May 2018
and September 2022 were (1) Hydra; (2)
Local Bitcoins, a VASP based/
incorporated in Finland; and (3)
‘‘TheFiniko.’’ The majority of these
receiving and sending counterparties
have evident ties to and/or significant
operations in Russia. Moreover, FinCEN
notes that Bitzlato engaged in significant
transactions with each of these
counterparties—all of whom are
associated with illicit activities—after
publishing its AML/KYC policy (further
described below), demonstrating the
permissive or ineffective nature of its
internal controls.
As noted above, dealings with the
Russia-connected darknet market Hydra
represented a notable percentage of
Bitzlato’s business. Bitzlato operated as
a facilitator of sales and purchases of
illicit goods and services on behalf of
customers and vendors operating on
Hydra and supported a larger proportion
of business involving Hydra than
comparable U.S. CVC exchangers. Prior
to its designation by OFAC in April
2022 and its closure in a law
enforcement operation, Russiaconnected Hydra was the largest darknet
market in the world, representing nearly
80 percent of all traceable darknet
market transactions in 2021. Bitzlato
processed over 1.46 million direct
transfers with the Hydra darknet
marketplace between May 2018 and
early April 2022, representing
transactional flows of nearly 20,000 BTC
sent and received during that timeframe.
Comparative analysis of Bitzlato to a
large U.S.-registered CVC exchanger
indicates that less than .01 percent of
the U.S. exchanger’s transactions were
attributed to darknet markets, whereas 6
to 8 percent of Bitzlato’s transactions
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
were attributed to the Hydra darknet
market alone. That comparison
illustrates that Bitzlato either had a
substantially higher appetite for
engaging with this illicit darknet market
than a U.S.-registered VASP and/or that
Bitzlato did not have the appropriate
controls to identify and prevent Hydra’s
illicit activity from flowing through it.
Although Hydra has been shut down,
Bitzlato continues to facilitate
transactions for growing Russiaconnected darknet markets. As of June
2022, Bitzlato’s top counterparties by
total number of transactions included
three other Russian darknet markets:
BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!, and Mega.30
Since Hydra’s closure in April 2022,
these three darknet markets show
notably increased transaction volumes
with Bitzlato as one of their top
counterparties by total sending and
receiving volumes. Bitzlato’s continued
facilitation of Russian darknet markets
further illustrates its ongoing
engagement with actors connected with
Russian illicit finance and raises
primary money laundering concerns.
C. Bitzlato Has Engaged in a Significant
Volume of Russian Illicit Finance
Transactions
According to a study performed by a
blockchain analysis company of seven
VASPs associated with Moscow City,
Russia, between 2019 and 2021, Bitzlato
received CVC worth $206 million from
darknet markets, $224 million from
scams, and $9 million from ransomware
attackers, with the value of transactions
involving Russian illicit finance or
otherwise risky sources quantified as 48
percent of all known Bitzlato
transactions.31 This is the largest
proportion of illicit funds received by
all seven businesses analyzed during
that time, with the second largest being
SUEX, at 37 percent. SUEX, a CVC
exchanger located in Moscow-City,
Russia, was itself designated by OFAC
on September 21, 2021, pursuant to E.O.
13694, as amended, for providing
material support to the threat posed by
criminal ransomware actors.
D. Bitzlato Does Not Adequately Combat
Money Laundering and Illicit Financing
on its Platform
Although Bitzlato’s homepage states
that it has a ‘‘Know Your Client [(KYC)]
policy,’’ public reporting shows that
Bitzlato does not effectively implement
30 Blockchain analysis identifies BlackSprut,
OMG!OMG! and Mega as Russian darknet markets
that offer narcotics and potentially other illicit
goods. Open source reporting has likewise flagged
that these darknet markets are Russian.
31 Chainalysis, ‘‘The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,’’
at 128 (February 2022).
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
policies and procedures designed to
combat money laundering and illicit
finance, and in fact, has advertised that
it lacks such policies, procedures, or
internal controls.
Notwithstanding its stated AML/KYC
policy, Bitzlato advertises the utility of
‘‘simple registration’’ and does not
collect the types of information
typically used to conduct effective
(AML/CFT).32 As of March 2022,
Bitzlato’s website advertised ‘‘simple
registration without KYC’’ with ‘‘. . .
neither selfies nor passports required.
Only your email [is] needed . . .’’ for
account creation and transactions on
Bitzlato’s platform.33 As of September
2022, Bitzlato’s advertisement had
become more circumspect, offering
‘‘simple registration’’ with ‘‘[o]nly your
email needed.’’ 34 Nevertheless, neither
advertisement indicates that Bitzlato
requires or collects the types of
information that would be expected or
needed as a part of a set of policies and
procedures designed to combat money
laundering and illicit finance.
Additionally, Bitzlato advertises userprivacy and anonymity, allowing one to
buy and sell CVC with ‘‘a P2P fiat-tocrypto exchange,’’ further stating, ‘‘you
exchange fiat money and
cryptocurrency directly with another
person.’’ 35 This exchange process
allows for transfers to or from a
traditional financial institution, as well
as other traditional methods, and
emphasizes that it does not require
users to go through the sort of extensive
KYC procedures that are required on
other exchanges. Furthermore, publicly
available information published by third
parties indicates that, notwithstanding
Bitzlato’s public statements regarding its
AML/KYC policy, verification may not
be required.
On its website as of March 2022,
Bitzlato purported to maintain an AML/
KYC policy designed to prevent and
reduce the potential risks of Bitzlato
being involved in any illegal activity,
stating that ‘‘in accordance with
international and local regulations,
Bitzlato implements effective internal
procedures and mechanisms to prevent
money laundering, terrorist financing,
drug and human trafficking, the
proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, corruption and bribery and
to respond to any form of suspicious
32 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (last accessed
January 2023).
33 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (accessed March
2022).
34 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (accessed
September 2022 and last accessed January 2023).
35 ‘‘Bitzlato Review,’’ CryptoNews, (accessed
March 22, 2022), available at https://
cryptonews.com/reviews/bitzlato/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
activity on the part of its Users [sic].’’ 36
Bitzlato further states that it implements
a verification procedure, and employs
an official responsible for compliance
with AML standards, transaction
monitoring and risk assessment.
In light of its advertised ‘‘simple
registration without KYC’’ and exchange
processes, Bitzlato’s previously stated
AML/KYC policy and controls appear to
have little impact on its actual
operations. In practice, Bitzlato does not
appear to be collecting the identifying
information that would be necessary to
facilitate meaningful KYC analysis. The
significant quantity of Bitzlato
transactions involving ransomware and
darknet market actors provides further
evidence that Bitzlato is not following
its stated AML/KYC policy or
identifying suspicious transactions in a
way that would allow it to identify and
halt the use of its platform by illicit
actors.
IV. Analysis Regarding Finding That
Bitzlato Is a Financial Institution
Operating Outside of the United States
That Is of Primary Money Laundering
Concern in Connection With Russian
Illicit Finance
FinCEN was guided in its analysis by
the following considerations: (1) the
extent to which the institution is used
to facilitate or promote money
laundering in connection with Russian
illicit finance, including through
connections to money laundering
activity by Russian organized criminal
groups; (2) the extent to which the
institution is used for legitimate
business purposes; and (3) the extent to
which action by FinCEN would guard
against international money laundering
and other financial crimes. While these
considerations were drawn from factors
identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(c)(2)(B),
taking into account the specific
circumstances of money laundering
activities in connection with Russian
illicit finance and the protection of U.S.
national security and the U.S. financial
system, FinCEN is under no obligation
pursuant to section 9714(a) to consider
any particular factor or set of factors
when making a finding that a financial
institution operating outside of the
United States is of primary money
laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance.
36 Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/antimoneylaundering-policy-and-know-your-clientpolicy (last accessed January 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3923
A. The Extent to Which Bitzlato Is Used
To Facilitate or Promote Money
Laundering in Connection With Russian
Illicit Finance, Including Through
Connections to Money Laundering
Activity by Organized Criminal Groups
The record amply establishes that
Bitzlato has significant ties to Russia
and facilitates a significant number of
money laundering transactions
involving Russia-related ransomware
and Russia-related darknet market
proceeds.
Bitzlato’s significant connections to
Russia are evidenced by the following:
(1) Moscow, Russia is the listed location
for Bitzlato found on public websites,
with a recent study performed by a
blockchain analysis company expressly
identifying Bitzlato as having a presence
in Moscow City, Russia (during the
period between 2019 and 2021); 37 (2)
the vast majority of its customer base is
located in Russia; (3) historical Bitzlato
website information claimed it was
created by persons in Russia; (4) a
registered address in Hong Kong that is
a Solo Workshops address—a shared
workspace that other Russian
companies use as their address of
record; (5) as of May 2022, an internet
job posting for Bitzlato advertised for a
management position in Russia; and (6)
in providing an example of a means to
purchase or cash out CVC with/to fiat
currency, Bitzlato cites transfers in
rubles to or from bank accounts with
Sberbank, a prominent Russian financial
institution that is the subject of Russiarelated sanctions administered and
enforced by OFAC.
Furthermore, Bitzlato has significant
links to Russian illicit finance and
Russian criminal actors. A review of
illicit actors’ direct exposure to Bitzlato
shows that a majority of those illicit
actors were based in, or had ties to,
Russia and Russia-based cybercriminal
forums. Russian ransomware groups or
affiliates, such as Russia-affiliated Conti,
have been observed using Bitzlato. In
particular, CVC wallet addresses
associated with the Conti ransomware
strain and its affiliates, including
Trickbot, have engaged in significant
BTC transactions involving Bitzlato.
Additionally, Bitzlato had a significant
transaction history with the Russiaconnected Hydra darknet marketplace
and continues to facilitate transactions
for Russia-connected darknet
marketplaces BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!,
and Mega. That Bitzlato is registered in
Hong Kong (or that it maintains a
registered office in Hong Kong) does not
alter FinCEN’s assessment that Bitzlato
37 Chainalysis, ‘‘The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,’’
at 128 (February 2022).
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
3924
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
is of money laundering concern in
connection with Russian illicit finance.
Section 9714(a) does not require that a
foreign financial institution be
registered or incorporated in Russia to
fall within its scope. The statute only
requires that FinCEN determine that the
institution is a primary money
laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance. That may occur,
as it does in the case of Bitzlato, where
the financial institution facilitates
money laundering transactions for funds
derived from illegal activity or the
proceeds of illegal activity and that
those activities have a nexus to Russia.
Given Bitzlato’s significant connections
to Russia and links to Russian illicit
finance and Russian criminal actors, the
record demonstrates that, in this case,
the statutory threshold under section
9714(a) is met.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
B. The Extent to Which Such
Institutions, Transactions, or Types of
Accounts Are Used for Legitimate
Business Purposes
The record further amply
demonstrates that Bitzlato’s services are
used, to an unusually large extent, to
facilitate illicit finance, particularly
when compared to other CVC
exchanges, and by illicit actors who
seek to circumvent AML/CFT
obligations and obfuscate the source of
funds or their intended use. Bitzlato
lacks an adequate AML/CFT program or
safeguards, it has a high ratio of illicit
transaction exposure relative to total
transaction volume when compared to
other exchanges, and it has served as the
second largest attributable counterparty
for the largest darknet market in the
world and continues to support Russiaconnected darknet markets.
Although Bitzlato offers services that
could potentially be used by licit actors,
those services may be found other
VASPs, including VASPs located in
jurisdictions with robust AML/CFT
frameworks and regulatory oversight.
Legitimate actors have access to a broad
range of comparable services that
provide for appropriate transparency
and can support international efforts to
protect the integrity of the international
financial system, including transactions
involving CVC. Accordingly, given the
extensive flow of illegitimate funds
through Bitzlato, FinCEN believes that
the need to protect U.S. financial
institutions from the money laundering
risks presented by Bitzlato outweighs
any potential legitimate utility its
services may provide.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
C. The Extent to Which Action by
FinCEN Would Guard Against
International Money Laundering and
Other Financial Crimes
Finding Bitzlato to be a financial
institution operating outside of the
United States of primary money
laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance, and prohibiting
transmittals of funds, will help insulate
the U.S. financial system from
international money laundering and
other financial crimes. It will further
reinforce the importance of AML/CFT
compliance in the virtual asset space,
help protect the national security of the
United States, notify financial
institutions around the world of
Bitzlato’s illicit activity, and set an
example for other international partners
to follow in the fight against illicit
finance and criminal actors.
V. Considerations in Selecting the
Special Measure Prohibiting
Transmittals of Funds
Section 9714(a) does not require
consideration of particular factors in
determining which one or more special
measures to apply to address an
identified primary money laundering
concern. Nevertheless, although not
bound by the factors, FinCEN
considered, in this instance, the factors
identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(a)(4)(B) to
help guide its analysis in this matter
and FinCEN elected to perform
interagency consultations 38 prior to
issuing this order.
Guided by the following factors,
FinCEN finds reasonable grounds exist
for concluding that Bitzlato is a
financial institution operating outside of
the United States that is of primary
money laundering concern in
connection with Russian illicit finance
and that, pursuant to section 9714(a)(2),
the imposition of a special measure
prohibiting certain transmittals of funds
involving Bitzlato is warranted.
38 In connection with this action, FinCEN
consulted with staff at the following Departments
and agencies with regard to the proposed order and
prohibition: Department of Justice; the Department
of State; the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System; the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation the Securities and Exchange
Commission; the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency; and the National Credit Union
Administration Board. These consultations
involved sharing drafts and information for the
purpose of obtaining interagency views on the
imposition of a prohibition on certain transmittals
of funds by any domestic financial institution from
or to Bitzlato, or from an account or CVC address
administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato, and the
effect that such a prohibition would have on the
domestic and international financial system. Each
of the Departments and agencies concurred in the
issuance of this order.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. Whether Similar Action Has Been or
Is Being Taken by Other Nations or
Multilateral Groups
FinCEN is unaware of any action that
has been taken or is being taken by other
nations or multilateral groups with
regard to Bitzlato. FinCEN, however,
believes that the action will provide a
strong signal to the international
community of the risks posed by
Bitzlato and urges counterpart
jurisdictions to consider such risks in its
supervision of VASPs.
B. Whether the Imposition of Any
Particular Special Measure Would
Create a Significant Competitive
Disadvantage, Including Any Undue
Cost or Burden Associated With
Compliance, for Financial Institutions
Organized or Licensed in the United
States
FinCEN assesses that imposing a
prohibition on certain transmittals of
funds involving Bitzlato will not present
a significant competitive disadvantage
for financial institutions organized or
licensed in the United States given
Bitzlato’s relatively small size, and the
relatively limited burden that
compliance with this order would
impose.
By U.S. and international standards,
Bitzlato represents a limited percentage
of daily CVC transfers. As of April 2022,
Bitzlato maintained a daily BTC balance
that was 0.0185 percent as large as the
largest U.S.-domiciled CVC exchange,
and it has 0.55 percent as many BTC
transfers. Bitzlato’s transaction history
with this same U.S.-domiciled CVC
exchange totals fewer than $26 million
in CVC over four years. By contrast, a
CVC price and volume aggregator
estimates that a large U.S.-domiciled
exchanger processed more than $2.7
billion in transfers daily. Further,
compliance with the prohibition on
certain transmittals of funds set out in
this order requires no tools or
competencies other than those already
employed by domestic financial
institutions to maintain their current
AML/CFT compliance programs. In
order to ensure that is the case, FinCEN
has elected to provide within this order
for the rejection of certain transmittals
of CVC that are received from or
originate at Bitzlato and outline the
steps a covered financial institution
should take in such circumstances.
In providing for the rejection of CVC
under certain limited circumstances,
FinCEN acknowledges that, at this time,
there are technological limitations that
may limit or preclude covered financial
institutions from declining CVC
transfers originating at addresses
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
outside of their control, and as such,
compliant institutions may find
themselves in receipt of CVC from
Bitzlato despite a desire and effort to
limit such exposure.39 As such, this
order allows covered financial
institutions the flexibility to act with
discretion based on the facts and
circumstances of a particular transaction
and comply with this order, even where
the originating address is no longer
accessible, where CVC originated from
Bitzlato but were held for an extended
period of time in an unhosted wallet, or
where the covered financial institution’s
risk mitigation procedures would
preclude returning funds to Bitzlato.
Moreover, by providing for the rejection
of CVC, this order ensures that covered
financial institutions will not be subject
to an undue cost or burden associated
with compliance.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
C. The Extent to Which the Action or the
Timing of the Action Would Have a
Significant Adverse Systemic Impact on
the International Payment, Clearance,
and Settlement System, or on Legitimate
Business Activities Involving Bitzlato
FinCEN believes that, for the reasons
described below, this action will not
have an adverse systemic impact, and
indeed, will have a positive systemic
impact on the international payment,
clearance, and settlement system, and
on legitimate business activities.
Bitzlato is a small exchange and has
a relatively limited presence in the
international payment system. As noted
above, by comparison to U.S.-domiciled
CVC exchanges, Bitzlato represents a
relatively limited percentage of daily
CVC transfers, by volume. There is no
evidence that Bitzlato is a major
participant in the international payment
system or relied upon by the
international banking community.
Rather, given its size and limited
international presence, the legitimate
business services that it offers would be
readily available through other
regulated institutions.
Given the redundancy and availability
of its services as well as its clear use for
39 FinCEN notes that CVC payment systems are
often designed to limit the control of specific
financial institutions over transactions and to
prevent rejections of funds by persons or entities
other than the sender of funds. As a result, although
covered financial institutions may institute an
internal prohibition on the sending of CVC
transactions to another address or entity, FinCEN
assesses that there are few, if any, readily available
ways for covered financial institutions to ‘‘reject’’
incoming CVC transactions [prior to receipt]. As
such, a prohibition on the receipt of CVC from
Bitzlato could not be feasibly implemented even by
the most compliant of financial institutions and
compliant institutions may find themselves in
receipt of CVC from Bitzlato despite a desire and
effort to limit such exposure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
illegitimate business, this action will
remove from transaction chains a VASP
that facilitates illicit or otherwise
unduly risky transactions that pose a
risk to the international financial
system, without clear adverse impact on
the international payment, clearance,
and settlement system or on legitimate
business activities currently involving
Bitzlato.
As FinCEN is not aware of timing
considerations associated with such
service redundancy or availability, there
is also no adverse impact associated
with the timing of this action.
D. The Effect of the Action on U.S.
National Security and Foreign Policy
Given Bitzlato’s connection with
Russian illicit finance, FinCEN believes
that this action is necessary to safeguard
U.S. national security and the U.S.
financial system, as well as serve key
U.S. national security objectives.
Targeting illicit proceeds obtained by
ransomware actors, especially those
with a nexus to Russia, is a high priority
for the United States, as evidenced by
recent OFAC actions and recently
established intergovernmental task
forces focused on Russia-related illicit
finance threats. As such, this action will
complement previous actions taken by
the U.S. Government and will serve the
United States’ national security and
foreign policy interests by protecting
U.S. businesses and interests from
known ransomware threat actors, by
publicly countering a financing
mechanism used by illicit entities,
including entities that seek to further
the Russian state’s aims of political and
economic destabilization, and by
reinforcing the expectations of AML/
CFT compliance in the virtual asset
ecosystem in order to improve the
identification and reporting of
suspicious activity by financial
institutions and agencies around the
world.
VI. Consideration of Alternative Special
Measures
FinCEN considered the other special
measures available pursuant to section
9714 prior to selecting the prohibition
reflected in this order. Pursuant to
section 9714, these measures included:
(1) the special measures described in 31
U.S.C. 5318A, including the imposition
of additional recordkeeping,
information collection, and reporting
requirements on covered U.S. financial
institutions and/or the prohibition or
imposition of conditions upon the
opening or maintaining of
correspondent or payable-through
accounts for or on behalf of a foreign
banking institution; and (2) the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3925
imposition of conditions on the
transmittal of funds, as an alternative to
a prohibition on the transmittal of
funds. However, prohibiting the
transmittal of funds involving Bitzlato is
the only means of adequately addressing
the threat Bitzlato poses.
In particular, none of the special
measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A
would effectively address the threat
posed by Bitzlato.40 Any additional
recordkeeping, information collection,
or reporting requirement would be
insufficient to guard against the risks
posed by covered financial institutions
processing transmittals of funds
involving Bitzlato, as such measures
may allow such transfers to continue to
benefit of illicit actors connected to
Russian ransomware activities, darknet
markets, and scams. Furthermore,
placing condition upon or prohibiting
the opening or maintaining in the
United States of a correspondent
account or payable-through account by
any domestic financial institution or
domestic financial agency for or on
behalf of a foreign banking institution,
as described in 31 U.S.C 5318A(b)(5), is
similarly inadequate to address the risks
of a P2P VASP such as Bitzlato. The
types of CVC transactions that Bitzlato
facilitates do not rely on correspondent
or payable-through accounts between
domestic financial institutions and
foreign banks, and FinCEN is unaware
of such relationships between Bitzlato
and U.S. or foreign financial
institutions. As such, prohibiting or
placing conditions upon the opening of
such accounts would be ineffective at
addressing the money laundering
concern.
For these reasons, FinCEN assesses
that the prohibition on the transmittal of
funds, including CVC, involving
Bitzlato is the most appropriate special
measure.
VII. Consideration for Imposing the
Special Measure Prohibiting Certain
Transmittals of Funds by Order
Section 9714(a) permits the Secretary
to impose certain special measures,
including the prohibition of certain
transmittals of funds, ‘‘by order,
40 Likewise, imposing conditions on transmittals
of funds, pursuant to section 9714(a)(2), would be
insufficient to address the threat. While imposing
conditions, rather than a full prohibition, may be
appropriate in circumstances where the institution
provides services for legitimate business that are
not easily replicated or where a complete
prohibition on transactional activity would
otherwise unduly harm legitimate economic
activity, Bitzlato provides a service that is easily
obtainable for legitimate customers through other
providers, and in this case the value of any
legitimate activity it may conduct is outweighed by
the significant proportion of illicit financial activity
identified and its lack of mandatory KYC.
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
3926
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
regulation or otherwise as permitted by
law,’’ and FinCEN considered both the
order and regulation options. In light of
the imminence of the threats posed by
the illicit actors facilitated by Bitzlato,
as well as the extent of the illicit
transactional activity identified, an
order prohibiting certain transmittals of
funds is the most appropriate course of
action.
In order to ensure orderly
implementation, FinCEN will delay the
effective date of this order until
February 1, 2023.
A copy of this order will be published
in the Federal Register. To the extent
Bitzlato or other parties have
information relevant to this order, they
may submit it to FinCEN at frc@
fincen.gov.
VIII. Order
A. Definitions
1. Bitzlato
The order defines Bitzlato, a CVC
exchanger registered in Hong Kong and
previously known as ChangeBot, to
mean all subsidiaries, branches, and
offices of Bitzlato operating in any
jurisdiction, as well as any successor
entity.
2. Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC)
The order defines convertible virtual
currency (CVC) as a medium of
exchange that either has an equivalent
value as currency, or acts as a substitute
for currency, but lacks legal tender
status. Despite having legal tender status
in at least one jurisdiction, for the
purpose of this order, Bitcoin is
included as a type of CVC.
3. Covered Financial Institution
The order defines a covered financial
institution as having the same meaning
as ‘‘financial institution’’ in 31 CFR
1010.100(t).
8. Transmittal of Funds
The order defines transmittal of funds
as the sending and receiving of funds,
including CVC.
9. Meaning of Other Terms
All terms used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meaning
set forth in 31 CFR Chapter X and 31
U.S.C. 5312.
B. Prohibition of the Transmittal of
Funds Involving Bitzlato
1. Prohibition
A covered financial institution is
prohibited from engaging in a
transmittal of funds from or to Bitzlato,
or from or to any account or CVC
address administered by or on behalf of
Bitzlato.
2. Rejection of Funds and Condition on
the Transfer of Rejected Funds
A covered financial institution will be
deemed not to have violated this Order
where, upon determining that it
received CVC that originated from
Bitzlato or from an account or CVC
address administered by or on behalf of
Bitzlato, that covered financial
institution rejects the transaction,
preventing the intended recipient from
accessing such CVC and returning the
CVC to Bitzlato, or to the account or
CVC address from which the CVC
originated.
C. Order Period
The terms of this order are effective
February 1, 2023, with no cessation
date.
D. Reservation of Authority
The order defines a CVC exchanger as
any person engaged as a business in the
exchange of CVC for fiat currency,
funds, or other CVC.
FinCEN reserves its authority
pursuant to Section 9714(a) to impose
conditions on certain transmittals of
funds from or to Bitzlato, or from or to
any account or CVC address
administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato.
5. Peer to Peer (P2P) Exchangers
E. Other Obligations
The order defines P2P exchangers to
include persons engaged in the business
of buying and selling CVC.
Nothing in this order shall be
construed to modify, impair or
otherwise affect any requirements or
obligations to which a covered financial
institution is subject pursuant to the
BSA, including, but not limited to, the
filing of Suspicious Activity Reports
(SARs), or other applicable laws or
regulations, such as the sanctions
administered and enforced by the U.S.
Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control.
4. CVC Exchanger
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
acquiring its assets, in whole or in part,
and/or carrying out the affairs of
Bitzlato under a new name.
6. Recipient
The order defines recipient as the
person to be paid by the recipient’s
covered financial institution.
7. Successor Entity
The order defines successor entity as
any person that replaces Bitzlato by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Jan 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F. Penalties for Noncompliance
The covered financial institution, and
any of its officers, directors, employees,
and agents, may be liable for civil or
criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. 5321
and 5322 for violating any of the terms
of this order.41
G. Validity of Order
Any judicial determination that any
provision of this order is invalid shall
not affect the validity of any other
provision of this order, and each other
provision shall thereafter remain in full
force and effect.
Dated: January 18, 2023.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2023–01189 Filed 1–19–23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2023–0039]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Charleston Harbor,
Charleston, SC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Cooper River,
Charleston Harbor, and Atlantic Ocean
at the Charleston Harbor Entrance and
Approach, Charleston Harbor, within a
100-yard radius of the vessel USNS
Gordon and all towing vessels
supporting its operations. The safety
zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment
from potential hazards created by the
dead ship movement of USNS Gordon
from the Naval Weapons Station, Joint
Base Charleston Transportation Core
(TC) Dock or Wharf Alpha through the
Charleston Harbor Entrance Channel.
Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Charleston.
SUMMARY:
41 Section 6106(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law
117–81) amended section 9714 of the Combatting
Russian Money Laundering Act (Pub. L. 116–283)
to, among other things, provide that the penalties
set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5321 and 5322 shall apply to
violations of any order, regulation, special measure,
or other requirement imposed under section 9714,
in the same manner and to the same extent
described in sections 5321 and 5322.
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3919-3926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Part 1010
RIN 1506-AB42
Imposition of Special Measure Prohibiting the Transmittal of
Funds Involving Bitzlato
AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
ACTION: Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing an order, pursuant to the Combating Russian
Money Laundering Act, as amended by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2022, to prohibit certain transmittals of funds (as
defined in this order) by any covered financial institution involving
Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato), a financial institution operating outside
of the United States determined to be of a primary money laundering
concern in connection with Russian illicit finance.
DATES: This action is effective February 1, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Resource Center, 1-800-767-
2825 or electronically at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Order
This order: (1) sets forth FinCEN's determination that Bitzlato
Limited (Bitzlato), a virtual asset service provider (VASP)
incorporated in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People's Republic of China (Hong Kong), is a financial institution
operating outside of the United States that is of primary money
laundering concern \1\ in connection with Russian illicit finance; and
(2) prohibits certain transmittals of funds by any domestic financial
institution or involving Bitzlato by any covered financial institution.
Bitzlato, a convertible virtual currency (CVC) exchanger (a type of
VASP) with significant operations in Russia that offers exchange and
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) services, is a financial institution of primary
money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance,
namely, through: (1) its facilitation of deposits and funds transfers
by Russian
[[Page 3920]]
ransomware groups \2\ or affiliates, such as Conti; \3\ and (2) its
facilitation of transactions with Russian darknet markets on behalf of
both darknet customers and darknet vendors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The application of FinCEN's authorities in this order is
specific only to section 9714 of the Combating Russian Money
Laundering Act. It is not intended to reflect the applicability of,
or obligations under, any provision of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or
its implementing regulations, and FinCEN has not considered the
extent to which Bitzlato does business in the United States.
\2\ A ransomware ``strain'' is the specific kind of malware that
encrypts or exfiltrates data from a victim in order to perpetrate
cyber extortion. The developers and owners of a strain are referred
to as a ransomware ``gang'' or ``group,'' and may use a strain for
their own extortion activities or lease access to the strain to
other illicit actors (affiliates) for use in a ``Ransomware as a
Service'' (RaaS) model. As a specific strain becomes less effective
or more detectable, the group may develop a new strain to continue
its business. For example, ``Conti v2'' is the second strain
developed by the Conti ransomware group, the first of which is
``Conti.'' A ransomware actor who has used both the Conti strain and
the Phobos strain in their attacks is both a Conti and a Phobos
affiliate.
\3\ As noted above, in fn. 3, Conti refers to both a criminal
group, the eponymous ransomware strains it spawned, and other
affiliated actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Statutory Provisions
Section 9714(a) of the Combating Russian Money Laundering Act, as
amended by section 6106(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2022 (hereafter section 9714(a)),\4\ provides, in
relevant part, that should the Secretary of the Treasury determine
reasonable grounds exist for concluding one or more financial
institutions operating outside of the United States is of primary money
laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance, the
Secretary, by order, regulation, or otherwise as permitted by law may
require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies
to take 1 or more of the special measures described in 31 U.S.C.
5318A(b) \5\ or prohibit, or impose conditions upon, certain
transmittals of funds (to be defined by the Secretary) by any domestic
financial institution or domestic financial agency, if such transmittal
of funds involves any such institution, The authority of the Secretary
of the Treasury (the Secretary) to administer both section 9714(a) and
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) has been delegated to FinCEN.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 9714 (as amended) can be found in a note to 31
U.S.C. 5318A.
\5\ 31 U.S.C. 5318A of the United States Code grants the
Secretary the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist
for concluding that one or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States is of primary money laundering concern,
to require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial
agencies to take certain ``special measures.''
\6\ Pursuant to Treasury Order 180-01 (January 14, 2020), the
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to administer the BSA,
including but not limited to 31 U.S.C. 5318A, has been delegated to
the Director of FinCEN. On August 11, 2022, and in accordance with
Treasury Order 101-05 (September 20, 2022) and 31 U.S.C. 321(b),
Treasury's Under Secretary for Terrorism & Financial Intelligence
re-delegated to the Director of FinCEN the authority of the
Secretary under section 9714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special measures one through four of section 5318A(b), commonly
known as section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, describe additional
recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements that
the Secretary may impose on covered U.S. financial institutions. The
fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, to prohibit, or impose conditions upon, the opening or
maintaining in the United States of correspondent or payable-through
accounts by any domestic financial institution or domestic financial
agency for, or on behalf of, a foreign banking institution, if such
correspondent account or payable-through account involves one or more
financial institutions operating outside of the United States that the
Secretary has found to be of primary money laundering concern.
B. Bitzlato
According to its website, Bitzlato is a ``modern company working in
the field of blockchain technologies and [CVC].'' \7\ It was previously
known as ChangeBot. Bitzlato is a Russian-affiliated CVC exchanger--a
category of VASP--that offers exchange and P2P services, allowing users
to exchange Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Litecoin
(LTC), Dash (DASH), Tether (USDT), Monolith Ruble (MCR) and Dogecoin
(DOGE) without intermediaries and hidden commissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Unless noted otherwise, all references to Bitzlato's
official website, web page, or policies are sourced from pages and
links accessed via https://bitzlato.com, including https://bitzlato.com/terms-of-service-bitzlato/, https://bitzlato.com/anti-money-laundering-policy-and-know-your-client-policy, and https://bitzlato.com/knowledgebase/how_to_buy_cryptocurrency/ (last accessed
January 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As set out on its website, Bitzlato is an online platform that
provides exchange and P2P services. Through its exchange services,
Bitzlato organizes ``trading for digital assets, their derivatives and
other market instruments'' with ``[t]rading conducted via standard
contracts or orders.'' \8\ In parallel, through its P2P services,
Bitzlato operates as ``an advertising board for digital assets
traders'' offering wallet, escrow and other related services associated
with P2P exchanges.\9\ Bitzlato further notes that its P2P services
include arranging ``storage of digital assets . . . to ensure and
guarantee the execution of transactions between registered users'' and
that it retains the ability to ``freeze [a user's] digital asset
wallet,'' indicating that Bitzlato has custody of its users' digital
wallets and the CVC held in those accounts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/terms-of-service-bitzlato/
(last accessed January 2023).
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of those activities, Bitzlato is a financial institution
within the meaning of section 9714(a). Section 9714(a) does not
expressly define the term ``financial institution.'' However, FinCEN
has long defined that term to apply to foreign and domestic ``money
transmitters'', including persons that accept and transmit value that
substitutes for currency, such as CVC.\11\ CVC exchangers, such as
Bitzlato, are ``money transmitters,'' and therefore, financial
institutions within the meaning of section 9714(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 31 U.S.C. 5312; 31 CFR 1010.100(t)(3), 1010.100(ff),
1010.605(f)(iv); see also FIN-2019-G001, ``Application of FinCEN's
Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual
Currencies'' (May 9, 2019); FIN-2013-G001, ``Application of FinCEN's
Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual
Currencies'' (March 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN,
Bitzlato operates outside the United States and, although identified as
``registered under the laws of Hong Kong,'' Bitzlato has significant
ties to and connections with Russia. Under ``Section 1. Terms and
Definitions'' in Bitzlato's ``Terms of Service'' page on its website,
Bitzlato is identified as ``registered under the laws of Hong Kong''
and ``located at Unit 617, 6/F, 131-132 Connaught Road West, Solo
workshops, Hong Kong.'' \12\ A review of publicly available material,
however, shows that Bitzlato's actual location of operation, its
employees, and a job opening are in Russia, with job descriptions
written in Russian. Indeed, a study performed by a blockchain analysis
company expressly identifies Bitzlato as having a presence in Moscow
City (the financial district of Moscow, Russia) during the period
between 2019 and 2021,\13\ and FinCEN has found no information on
current or former employees or positions in Hong Kong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/terms-of-service-bitzlato/
(last accessed January 2022).
\13\ Chainalysis, ``The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,'' at 128
(February 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3921]]
III. Finding That Bitzlato Is a Financial Institution Operating Outside
of the United States of Primary Money Laundering Concern in Connection
With Russian Illicit Finance
Based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN,
FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that
Bitzlato, a P2P CVC exchanger with significant operations in Russia, is
a financial institution of primary money laundering concern in
connection with Russian illicit finance, namely, through: (1) its
facilitation of deposits and funds transfers by Russian ransomware
groups or affiliates, such as Conti; and (2) its facilitation of
transactions with Russian darknet markets on behalf of both darknet
customers and darknet vendors.
A. Bitzlato Is Used To Facilitate Processing and Laundering Proceeds
From Ransomware Attacks
1. Background on Ransomware
Ransomware is a form of malicious software (malware) used by an
attacker to block access to a computer system or data, often by
encrypting data or programs on information technology (IT) systems. Its
purpose is to extort ransom payments from victims in exchange for
decrypting the information, restoring victims' access to their systems
or data, and/or not disclosing or destroying data or programs on IT
systems. Ransomware payments are made most often via CVC, which are
preferred by ransomware attackers for their ability to obscure the
attackers' identities, thus aiding in the attackers' ability to launder
their criminal proceeds and continue attacking victims.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., FIN-2021-A004, ``Advisory on Ransomware and the
Use of the Financial System to Facilitate Ransom Payments''
(November 8, 2021), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/2021-11-08/FinCEN%20Ransomware%20Advisory_FINAL_508_.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to open source reporting, ransomware attacks have
increased exponentially over the last several years, with an estimated
300 million attempted attacks in the first half of 2021 alone,\15\
including attacks against U.S. entities and institutions. These attacks
have destabilized private businesses, healthcare facilities, school
districts, and critical infrastructure--including domestic energy
distribution, such as in the 2021 Colonial Pipeline attack,\16\ and
food supply chains, such as in the 2021 JBS meatpacking plant
attack.\17\ The U.S. government has long engaged on efforts to counter
the threat of ransomware, and on April 1, 2015, the President issued
Executive Order (E.O.) 13694 (``Blocking the Property of Certain
Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities''),
in which he declared a national emergency to deal with the threat of
the ``increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber-enabled
activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole
or in substantial part, outside the United States [that] constitute an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Mid-year Update 2021 Cyber Threat Report: Cyber threat
intelligence for navigating today's business reality,'' Sonicwall.
\16\ Bogage, Jacob. ``Colonial Pipeline CEO says paying $4.4
million ransom was the right thing to do for the country,''
Washington Post (May 19, 2021).
\17\ ``Meatpacker JBS says it paid equivalent of $11 mln in
ransomware attack,'' Reuters (June 10, 2021).
\18\ This E.O. was amended on December 28, 2016, pursuant to
E.O. 13757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, roughly 74 percent of ransomware revenue, or over $400
million worth of CVC, went to strains highly likely to be affiliated
with Russian organizations. Blockchain analysis combined with web
traffic data further revealed that most of the extorted funds from the
ransomware attacks were laundered through services primarily catering
to Russian users.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Chainalysis, ``The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,'' at 123
(February 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media have reported on banks and stock exchanges being targets
for ransomware attacks.\20\ Further, the U.S. financial system is being
used to send significant amounts of U.S. funds as ransom payments to
foreign actors--both cybercriminals and nation-state actors.
Consequently, ransomware attacks are a direct threat to the U.S.
economy, to its citizens, and to its national security. Moreover, the
threat of ransomware is not limited to the United States, as ransomware
attacks are on the rise across the globe, posing a significant threat
to governments, businesses, and institutions on several continents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Egan, Matt. ``Banks and stock exchanges are even bigger
targets for ransomware attacks,'' CNN (May 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although ransomware actors and darknet markets are not always
state-affiliated, the notorious ransomware group Conti has significant
connections to Russia and pledged allegiance to Russia on February 25,
2022. Further, the Hydra darknet market almost entirely catered to
Russian customers and illicit goods and service providers before it was
shut down by law enforcement in April 2022. The illicit gains from
ransomware attacks can often be traced back to Russian-affiliated
exchanges and darknet markets, representing the laundering of victim
payments by Russian and Russia-affiliated actors through Russian and
Russia-affiliated services. As such, ransomware is a conduit for
Russian illicit finance.
2. Bitzlato's Ransomware Connections
Bitzlato plays a critical role in facilitating transactions for the
Conti ransomware group and other global ransomware actors, including
actors that operate out of Russia. As a result, FinCEN assesses that
Bitzlato serves as a VASP that ultimately enables the profitability of
ransomware attacks and, at least in the case of Conti, advances the
political and economic destabilization interests of the Government of
Russia.
a. Conti Ransomware Group
Conti, a notorious Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) group and the
eponymous strains of ransomware it offers as a service to affiliated
criminals for their use, emerged in December 2019.\21\ Although most
such groups take steps to obfuscate their connections to Russia and
Russian illicit finance, Conti did not. To the contrary, on February
25, 2022, Conti pledged allegiance to the Government of Russia and
vowed to retaliate against international state actors for their support
of the Government of Ukraine amidst the Russian invasion.\22\ Further,
a cache of 60,000 leaked chat messages and files from Conti appears to
link Conti to the Russian state, including the Russian Federal Security
Service.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Abrams, Lawrence. ``Conti ransomware shows signs of being
Ryuk's successor,'' Bleeping Computer (July 9, 2020).
\22\ Bing, Christopher. ``Russia-based ransomware group Conti
issues warning to Kremlin foes,'' Reuters (February 25, 2022).
\23\ Burgess, Matt. ``After Declaring Support for Russian
Invasion, Conti Ransomware Gang Hit With Data Leak,'' Wired (March
18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FinCEN has documented numerous transactions between Conti-
associated CVC addresses and Bitzlato.
b. Other Ransomware Groups
Separately, based on blockchain analysis, other ransomware groups
have used Bitzlato to facilitate transactions involving ransomware,
including ransomware groups based in or linked to Russia. For example,
blockchain analysis has identified transactions involving Bitzlato and:
(1) Chatex, a VASP designated by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) for facilitating financial transactions for ransomware
actors; and (2) the RaaS group DarkSide, a Russian-speaking
[[Page 3922]]
group responsible for the Colonial Pipeline Company ransomware incident
in May 2021.24 25 Based on blockchain analysis, 76 Bitzlato
deposit addresses received bitcoin (BTC) worth over $300,000 attributed
to Chatex. On November 8, 2021, OFAC designated Chatex, pursuant to
E.O. 13694, as amended, for its part in facilitating funds transfers
for ransomware actors and for providing material support to SUEX OTC,
S.R.O. (SUEX). SUEX, a CVC exchanger located in Moscow City, Russia,
was itself designated by OFAC on September 21, 2021, pursuant to E.O.
13694, as amended, for providing material support to the threat posed
by criminal ransomware actors.\26\ According to media reporting in
2021, the RaaS group DarkSide, a Russian-speaking group responsible for
the Colonial Pipeline Company ransomware incident in May 2021, along
with its clientele, also used Bitzlato.\27\ In addition, the Phobos
ransomware group and its affiliates have made at least 1,063 direct
transfers of funds in the form of BTC to at least 76 Bitzlato deposit
addresses identified as having received funds from Chatex, representing
414.84 BTC worth approximately $3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Kramer, Andrew; Schwirtz, Michael; and Troianovski, Anton.
``Secret Chats Show How Cybergang Became a Ransomware Powerhouse,''
N.Y. Times (June 3, 2021).
\25\ Department of State, ``Reward Offers for Information to
Bring DarkSide Ransomware Variant Co-Conspirators to Justice,''
(November 4, 2021), https://www.state.gov/reward-offers-for-information-to-bring-darkside-ransomware-variant-co-conspirators-to-justice.
\26\ Department of the Treasury, ``Treasury Continues to Counter
Ransomware as Part of Whole-of-Government Effort; Sanctions
Ransomware Operators and Virtual Currency Exchange'' (November 8,
2021), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471.
\27\ Brewster, Thomas. ``As Ransomware Hackers Sit On Millions
In Extorted Money, America's Military Is Urged To Hack Back,''
Forbes (June 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to public reporting, a spokesperson for Bitzlato denied
that it worked with any ransomware criminals and claimed it was not
acquainted with an organization called DarkSide.\28\ However, even if
Bitzlato is not knowingly affiliated with DarkSide or other ransomware
groups, FinCEN assesses that it provides an enabling environment for
such ransomware criminals to utilize its services to cash out
ransomware proceeds due to its minimal Anti-Money Laundering/Countering
the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) protocols, solidifying its
reputation as a go-to CVC exchanger for such groups.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ See Section III.C-D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Bitzlato Is Used To Facilitate Darknet Markets and Scams
In addition to receiving ransomware proceeds, Bitzlato's receiving
and sending transactional activity shows a significant connection to
counterparties associated with other suspected illicit activities, such
as darknet markets and scams with ties to and operations in Russia.
Approximately two-thirds of Bitzlato's top receiving and sending
counterparties are associated with darknet markets or scams. For
example, Bitzlato's top three receiving counterparties, by total amount
of BTC received between May 2018 and September 2022 were: (1) Binance,
a VASP; (2) the Russia-connected darknet market Hydra; and (3) the
alleged Russia-based Ponzi scheme ``TheFiniko.'' Similarly, Bitzlato's
top three sending counterparties, by total amount of BTC sent between
May 2018 and September 2022 were (1) Hydra; (2) Local Bitcoins, a VASP
based/incorporated in Finland; and (3) ``TheFiniko.'' The majority of
these receiving and sending counterparties have evident ties to and/or
significant operations in Russia. Moreover, FinCEN notes that Bitzlato
engaged in significant transactions with each of these counterparties--
all of whom are associated with illicit activities--after publishing
its AML/KYC policy (further described below), demonstrating the
permissive or ineffective nature of its internal controls.
As noted above, dealings with the Russia-connected darknet market
Hydra represented a notable percentage of Bitzlato's business. Bitzlato
operated as a facilitator of sales and purchases of illicit goods and
services on behalf of customers and vendors operating on Hydra and
supported a larger proportion of business involving Hydra than
comparable U.S. CVC exchangers. Prior to its designation by OFAC in
April 2022 and its closure in a law enforcement operation, Russia-
connected Hydra was the largest darknet market in the world,
representing nearly 80 percent of all traceable darknet market
transactions in 2021. Bitzlato processed over 1.46 million direct
transfers with the Hydra darknet marketplace between May 2018 and early
April 2022, representing transactional flows of nearly 20,000 BTC sent
and received during that timeframe. Comparative analysis of Bitzlato to
a large U.S.-registered CVC exchanger indicates that less than .01
percent of the U.S. exchanger's transactions were attributed to darknet
markets, whereas 6 to 8 percent of Bitzlato's transactions were
attributed to the Hydra darknet market alone. That comparison
illustrates that Bitzlato either had a substantially higher appetite
for engaging with this illicit darknet market than a U.S.-registered
VASP and/or that Bitzlato did not have the appropriate controls to
identify and prevent Hydra's illicit activity from flowing through it.
Although Hydra has been shut down, Bitzlato continues to facilitate
transactions for growing Russia-connected darknet markets. As of June
2022, Bitzlato's top counterparties by total number of transactions
included three other Russian darknet markets: BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!, and
Mega.\30\ Since Hydra's closure in April 2022, these three darknet
markets show notably increased transaction volumes with Bitzlato as one
of their top counterparties by total sending and receiving volumes.
Bitzlato's continued facilitation of Russian darknet markets further
illustrates its ongoing engagement with actors connected with Russian
illicit finance and raises primary money laundering concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Blockchain analysis identifies BlackSprut, OMG!OMG! and
Mega as Russian darknet markets that offer narcotics and potentially
other illicit goods. Open source reporting has likewise flagged that
these darknet markets are Russian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Bitzlato Has Engaged in a Significant Volume of Russian Illicit
Finance Transactions
According to a study performed by a blockchain analysis company of
seven VASPs associated with Moscow City, Russia, between 2019 and 2021,
Bitzlato received CVC worth $206 million from darknet markets, $224
million from scams, and $9 million from ransomware attackers, with the
value of transactions involving Russian illicit finance or otherwise
risky sources quantified as 48 percent of all known Bitzlato
transactions.\31\ This is the largest proportion of illicit funds
received by all seven businesses analyzed during that time, with the
second largest being SUEX, at 37 percent. SUEX, a CVC exchanger located
in Moscow-City, Russia, was itself designated by OFAC on September 21,
2021, pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended, for providing material
support to the threat posed by criminal ransomware actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Chainalysis, ``The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,'' at 128
(February 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Bitzlato Does Not Adequately Combat Money Laundering and Illicit
Financing on its Platform
Although Bitzlato's homepage states that it has a ``Know Your
Client [(KYC)] policy,'' public reporting shows that Bitzlato does not
effectively implement
[[Page 3923]]
policies and procedures designed to combat money laundering and illicit
finance, and in fact, has advertised that it lacks such policies,
procedures, or internal controls.
Notwithstanding its stated AML/KYC policy, Bitzlato advertises the
utility of ``simple registration'' and does not collect the types of
information typically used to conduct effective (AML/CFT).\32\ As of
March 2022, Bitzlato's website advertised ``simple registration without
KYC'' with ``. . . neither selfies nor passports required. Only your
email [is] needed . . .'' for account creation and transactions on
Bitzlato's platform.\33\ As of September 2022, Bitzlato's advertisement
had become more circumspect, offering ``simple registration'' with
``[o]nly your email needed.'' \34\ Nevertheless, neither advertisement
indicates that Bitzlato requires or collects the types of information
that would be expected or needed as a part of a set of policies and
procedures designed to combat money laundering and illicit finance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (last accessed January
2023).
\33\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (accessed March 2022).
\34\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com (accessed September 2022 and
last accessed January 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Bitzlato advertises user-privacy and anonymity,
allowing one to buy and sell CVC with ``a P2P fiat-to-crypto
exchange,'' further stating, ``you exchange fiat money and
cryptocurrency directly with another person.'' \35\ This exchange
process allows for transfers to or from a traditional financial
institution, as well as other traditional methods, and emphasizes that
it does not require users to go through the sort of extensive KYC
procedures that are required on other exchanges. Furthermore, publicly
available information published by third parties indicates that,
notwithstanding Bitzlato's public statements regarding its AML/KYC
policy, verification may not be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Bitzlato Review,'' CryptoNews, (accessed March 22, 2022),
available at https://cryptonews.com/reviews/bitzlato/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On its website as of March 2022, Bitzlato purported to maintain an
AML/KYC policy designed to prevent and reduce the potential risks of
Bitzlato being involved in any illegal activity, stating that ``in
accordance with international and local regulations, Bitzlato
implements effective internal procedures and mechanisms to prevent
money laundering, terrorist financing, drug and human trafficking, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, corruption and bribery
and to respond to any form of suspicious activity on the part of its
Users [sic].'' \36\ Bitzlato further states that it implements a
verification procedure, and employs an official responsible for
compliance with AML standards, transaction monitoring and risk
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Bitzlato, https://bitzlato.com/anti-moneylaundering-policy-and-know-your-client-policy (last accessed January 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of its advertised ``simple registration without KYC'' and
exchange processes, Bitzlato's previously stated AML/KYC policy and
controls appear to have little impact on its actual operations. In
practice, Bitzlato does not appear to be collecting the identifying
information that would be necessary to facilitate meaningful KYC
analysis. The significant quantity of Bitzlato transactions involving
ransomware and darknet market actors provides further evidence that
Bitzlato is not following its stated AML/KYC policy or identifying
suspicious transactions in a way that would allow it to identify and
halt the use of its platform by illicit actors.
IV. Analysis Regarding Finding That Bitzlato Is a Financial Institution
Operating Outside of the United States That Is of Primary Money
Laundering Concern in Connection With Russian Illicit Finance
FinCEN was guided in its analysis by the following considerations:
(1) the extent to which the institution is used to facilitate or
promote money laundering in connection with Russian illicit finance,
including through connections to money laundering activity by Russian
organized criminal groups; (2) the extent to which the institution is
used for legitimate business purposes; and (3) the extent to which
action by FinCEN would guard against international money laundering and
other financial crimes. While these considerations were drawn from
factors identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(c)(2)(B), taking into account the
specific circumstances of money laundering activities in connection
with Russian illicit finance and the protection of U.S. national
security and the U.S. financial system, FinCEN is under no obligation
pursuant to section 9714(a) to consider any particular factor or set of
factors when making a finding that a financial institution operating
outside of the United States is of primary money laundering concern in
connection with Russian illicit finance.
A. The Extent to Which Bitzlato Is Used To Facilitate or Promote Money
Laundering in Connection With Russian Illicit Finance, Including
Through Connections to Money Laundering Activity by Organized Criminal
Groups
The record amply establishes that Bitzlato has significant ties to
Russia and facilitates a significant number of money laundering
transactions involving Russia-related ransomware and Russia-related
darknet market proceeds.
Bitzlato's significant connections to Russia are evidenced by the
following: (1) Moscow, Russia is the listed location for Bitzlato found
on public websites, with a recent study performed by a blockchain
analysis company expressly identifying Bitzlato as having a presence in
Moscow City, Russia (during the period between 2019 and 2021); \37\ (2)
the vast majority of its customer base is located in Russia; (3)
historical Bitzlato website information claimed it was created by
persons in Russia; (4) a registered address in Hong Kong that is a Solo
Workshops address--a shared workspace that other Russian companies use
as their address of record; (5) as of May 2022, an internet job posting
for Bitzlato advertised for a management position in Russia; and (6) in
providing an example of a means to purchase or cash out CVC with/to
fiat currency, Bitzlato cites transfers in rubles to or from bank
accounts with Sberbank, a prominent Russian financial institution that
is the subject of Russia-related sanctions administered and enforced by
OFAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Chainalysis, ``The 2022 Crypto Crime Report,'' at 128
(February 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Bitzlato has significant links to Russian illicit
finance and Russian criminal actors. A review of illicit actors' direct
exposure to Bitzlato shows that a majority of those illicit actors were
based in, or had ties to, Russia and Russia-based cybercriminal forums.
Russian ransomware groups or affiliates, such as Russia-affiliated
Conti, have been observed using Bitzlato. In particular, CVC wallet
addresses associated with the Conti ransomware strain and its
affiliates, including Trickbot, have engaged in significant BTC
transactions involving Bitzlato. Additionally, Bitzlato had a
significant transaction history with the Russia-connected Hydra darknet
marketplace and continues to facilitate transactions for Russia-
connected darknet marketplaces BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!, and Mega. That
Bitzlato is registered in Hong Kong (or that it maintains a registered
office in Hong Kong) does not alter FinCEN's assessment that Bitzlato
[[Page 3924]]
is of money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit
finance. Section 9714(a) does not require that a foreign financial
institution be registered or incorporated in Russia to fall within its
scope. The statute only requires that FinCEN determine that the
institution is a primary money laundering concern in connection with
Russian illicit finance. That may occur, as it does in the case of
Bitzlato, where the financial institution facilitates money laundering
transactions for funds derived from illegal activity or the proceeds of
illegal activity and that those activities have a nexus to Russia.
Given Bitzlato's significant connections to Russia and links to Russian
illicit finance and Russian criminal actors, the record demonstrates
that, in this case, the statutory threshold under section 9714(a) is
met.
B. The Extent to Which Such Institutions, Transactions, or Types of
Accounts Are Used for Legitimate Business Purposes
The record further amply demonstrates that Bitzlato's services are
used, to an unusually large extent, to facilitate illicit finance,
particularly when compared to other CVC exchanges, and by illicit
actors who seek to circumvent AML/CFT obligations and obfuscate the
source of funds or their intended use. Bitzlato lacks an adequate AML/
CFT program or safeguards, it has a high ratio of illicit transaction
exposure relative to total transaction volume when compared to other
exchanges, and it has served as the second largest attributable
counterparty for the largest darknet market in the world and continues
to support Russia-connected darknet markets.
Although Bitzlato offers services that could potentially be used by
licit actors, those services may be found other VASPs, including VASPs
located in jurisdictions with robust AML/CFT frameworks and regulatory
oversight. Legitimate actors have access to a broad range of comparable
services that provide for appropriate transparency and can support
international efforts to protect the integrity of the international
financial system, including transactions involving CVC. Accordingly,
given the extensive flow of illegitimate funds through Bitzlato, FinCEN
believes that the need to protect U.S. financial institutions from the
money laundering risks presented by Bitzlato outweighs any potential
legitimate utility its services may provide.
C. The Extent to Which Action by FinCEN Would Guard Against
International Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes
Finding Bitzlato to be a financial institution operating outside of
the United States of primary money laundering concern in connection
with Russian illicit finance, and prohibiting transmittals of funds,
will help insulate the U.S. financial system from international money
laundering and other financial crimes. It will further reinforce the
importance of AML/CFT compliance in the virtual asset space, help
protect the national security of the United States, notify financial
institutions around the world of Bitzlato's illicit activity, and set
an example for other international partners to follow in the fight
against illicit finance and criminal actors.
V. Considerations in Selecting the Special Measure Prohibiting
Transmittals of Funds
Section 9714(a) does not require consideration of particular
factors in determining which one or more special measures to apply to
address an identified primary money laundering concern. Nevertheless,
although not bound by the factors, FinCEN considered, in this instance,
the factors identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(a)(4)(B) to help guide its
analysis in this matter and FinCEN elected to perform interagency
consultations \38\ prior to issuing this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In connection with this action, FinCEN consulted with staff
at the following Departments and agencies with regard to the
proposed order and prohibition: Department of Justice; the
Department of State; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation the Securities and
Exchange Commission; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and the National Credit
Union Administration Board. These consultations involved sharing
drafts and information for the purpose of obtaining interagency
views on the imposition of a prohibition on certain transmittals of
funds by any domestic financial institution from or to Bitzlato, or
from an account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of
Bitzlato, and the effect that such a prohibition would have on the
domestic and international financial system. Each of the Departments
and agencies concurred in the issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guided by the following factors, FinCEN finds reasonable grounds
exist for concluding that Bitzlato is a financial institution operating
outside of the United States that is of primary money laundering
concern in connection with Russian illicit finance and that, pursuant
to section 9714(a)(2), the imposition of a special measure prohibiting
certain transmittals of funds involving Bitzlato is warranted.
A. Whether Similar Action Has Been or Is Being Taken by Other Nations
or Multilateral Groups
FinCEN is unaware of any action that has been taken or is being
taken by other nations or multilateral groups with regard to Bitzlato.
FinCEN, however, believes that the action will provide a strong signal
to the international community of the risks posed by Bitzlato and urges
counterpart jurisdictions to consider such risks in its supervision of
VASPs.
B. Whether the Imposition of Any Particular Special Measure Would
Create a Significant Competitive Disadvantage, Including Any Undue Cost
or Burden Associated With Compliance, for Financial Institutions
Organized or Licensed in the United States
FinCEN assesses that imposing a prohibition on certain transmittals
of funds involving Bitzlato will not present a significant competitive
disadvantage for financial institutions organized or licensed in the
United States given Bitzlato's relatively small size, and the
relatively limited burden that compliance with this order would impose.
By U.S. and international standards, Bitzlato represents a limited
percentage of daily CVC transfers. As of April 2022, Bitzlato
maintained a daily BTC balance that was 0.0185 percent as large as the
largest U.S.-domiciled CVC exchange, and it has 0.55 percent as many
BTC transfers. Bitzlato's transaction history with this same U.S.-
domiciled CVC exchange totals fewer than $26 million in CVC over four
years. By contrast, a CVC price and volume aggregator estimates that a
large U.S.-domiciled exchanger processed more than $2.7 billion in
transfers daily. Further, compliance with the prohibition on certain
transmittals of funds set out in this order requires no tools or
competencies other than those already employed by domestic financial
institutions to maintain their current AML/CFT compliance programs. In
order to ensure that is the case, FinCEN has elected to provide within
this order for the rejection of certain transmittals of CVC that are
received from or originate at Bitzlato and outline the steps a covered
financial institution should take in such circumstances.
In providing for the rejection of CVC under certain limited
circumstances, FinCEN acknowledges that, at this time, there are
technological limitations that may limit or preclude covered financial
institutions from declining CVC transfers originating at addresses
[[Page 3925]]
outside of their control, and as such, compliant institutions may find
themselves in receipt of CVC from Bitzlato despite a desire and effort
to limit such exposure.\39\ As such, this order allows covered
financial institutions the flexibility to act with discretion based on
the facts and circumstances of a particular transaction and comply with
this order, even where the originating address is no longer accessible,
where CVC originated from Bitzlato but were held for an extended period
of time in an unhosted wallet, or where the covered financial
institution's risk mitigation procedures would preclude returning funds
to Bitzlato. Moreover, by providing for the rejection of CVC, this
order ensures that covered financial institutions will not be subject
to an undue cost or burden associated with compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ FinCEN notes that CVC payment systems are often designed to
limit the control of specific financial institutions over
transactions and to prevent rejections of funds by persons or
entities other than the sender of funds. As a result, although
covered financial institutions may institute an internal prohibition
on the sending of CVC transactions to another address or entity,
FinCEN assesses that there are few, if any, readily available ways
for covered financial institutions to ``reject'' incoming CVC
transactions [prior to receipt]. As such, a prohibition on the
receipt of CVC from Bitzlato could not be feasibly implemented even
by the most compliant of financial institutions and compliant
institutions may find themselves in receipt of CVC from Bitzlato
despite a desire and effort to limit such exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Extent to Which the Action or the Timing of the Action Would
Have a Significant Adverse Systemic Impact on the International
Payment, Clearance, and Settlement System, or on Legitimate Business
Activities Involving Bitzlato
FinCEN believes that, for the reasons described below, this action
will not have an adverse systemic impact, and indeed, will have a
positive systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and
settlement system, and on legitimate business activities.
Bitzlato is a small exchange and has a relatively limited presence
in the international payment system. As noted above, by comparison to
U.S.-domiciled CVC exchanges, Bitzlato represents a relatively limited
percentage of daily CVC transfers, by volume. There is no evidence that
Bitzlato is a major participant in the international payment system or
relied upon by the international banking community.
Rather, given its size and limited international presence, the
legitimate business services that it offers would be readily available
through other regulated institutions.
Given the redundancy and availability of its services as well as
its clear use for illegitimate business, this action will remove from
transaction chains a VASP that facilitates illicit or otherwise unduly
risky transactions that pose a risk to the international financial
system, without clear adverse impact on the international payment,
clearance, and settlement system or on legitimate business activities
currently involving Bitzlato.
As FinCEN is not aware of timing considerations associated with
such service redundancy or availability, there is also no adverse
impact associated with the timing of this action.
D. The Effect of the Action on U.S. National Security and Foreign
Policy
Given Bitzlato's connection with Russian illicit finance, FinCEN
believes that this action is necessary to safeguard U.S. national
security and the U.S. financial system, as well as serve key U.S.
national security objectives. Targeting illicit proceeds obtained by
ransomware actors, especially those with a nexus to Russia, is a high
priority for the United States, as evidenced by recent OFAC actions and
recently established intergovernmental task forces focused on Russia-
related illicit finance threats. As such, this action will complement
previous actions taken by the U.S. Government and will serve the United
States' national security and foreign policy interests by protecting
U.S. businesses and interests from known ransomware threat actors, by
publicly countering a financing mechanism used by illicit entities,
including entities that seek to further the Russian state's aims of
political and economic destabilization, and by reinforcing the
expectations of AML/CFT compliance in the virtual asset ecosystem in
order to improve the identification and reporting of suspicious
activity by financial institutions and agencies around the world.
VI. Consideration of Alternative Special Measures
FinCEN considered the other special measures available pursuant to
section 9714 prior to selecting the prohibition reflected in this
order. Pursuant to section 9714, these measures included: (1) the
special measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, including the imposition
of additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting
requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions and/or the
prohibition or imposition of conditions upon the opening or maintaining
of correspondent or payable-through accounts for or on behalf of a
foreign banking institution; and (2) the imposition of conditions on
the transmittal of funds, as an alternative to a prohibition on the
transmittal of funds. However, prohibiting the transmittal of funds
involving Bitzlato is the only means of adequately addressing the
threat Bitzlato poses.
In particular, none of the special measures described in 31 U.S.C.
5318A would effectively address the threat posed by Bitzlato.\40\ Any
additional recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting
requirement would be insufficient to guard against the risks posed by
covered financial institutions processing transmittals of funds
involving Bitzlato, as such measures may allow such transfers to
continue to benefit of illicit actors connected to Russian ransomware
activities, darknet markets, and scams. Furthermore, placing condition
upon or prohibiting the opening or maintaining in the United States of
a correspondent account or payable-through account by any domestic
financial institution or domestic financial agency for or on behalf of
a foreign banking institution, as described in 31 U.S.C 5318A(b)(5), is
similarly inadequate to address the risks of a P2P VASP such as
Bitzlato. The types of CVC transactions that Bitzlato facilitates do
not rely on correspondent or payable-through accounts between domestic
financial institutions and foreign banks, and FinCEN is unaware of such
relationships between Bitzlato and U.S. or foreign financial
institutions. As such, prohibiting or placing conditions upon the
opening of such accounts would be ineffective at addressing the money
laundering concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Likewise, imposing conditions on transmittals of funds,
pursuant to section 9714(a)(2), would be insufficient to address the
threat. While imposing conditions, rather than a full prohibition,
may be appropriate in circumstances where the institution provides
services for legitimate business that are not easily replicated or
where a complete prohibition on transactional activity would
otherwise unduly harm legitimate economic activity, Bitzlato
provides a service that is easily obtainable for legitimate
customers through other providers, and in this case the value of any
legitimate activity it may conduct is outweighed by the significant
proportion of illicit financial activity identified and its lack of
mandatory KYC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, FinCEN assesses that the prohibition on the
transmittal of funds, including CVC, involving Bitzlato is the most
appropriate special measure.
VII. Consideration for Imposing the Special Measure Prohibiting Certain
Transmittals of Funds by Order
Section 9714(a) permits the Secretary to impose certain special
measures, including the prohibition of certain transmittals of funds,
``by order,
[[Page 3926]]
regulation or otherwise as permitted by law,'' and FinCEN considered
both the order and regulation options. In light of the imminence of the
threats posed by the illicit actors facilitated by Bitzlato, as well as
the extent of the illicit transactional activity identified, an order
prohibiting certain transmittals of funds is the most appropriate
course of action.
In order to ensure orderly implementation, FinCEN will delay the
effective date of this order until February 1, 2023.
A copy of this order will be published in the Federal Register. To
the extent Bitzlato or other parties have information relevant to this
order, they may submit it to FinCEN at [email protected].
VIII. Order
A. Definitions
1. Bitzlato
The order defines Bitzlato, a CVC exchanger registered in Hong Kong
and previously known as ChangeBot, to mean all subsidiaries, branches,
and offices of Bitzlato operating in any jurisdiction, as well as any
successor entity.
2. Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC)
The order defines convertible virtual currency (CVC) as a medium of
exchange that either has an equivalent value as currency, or acts as a
substitute for currency, but lacks legal tender status. Despite having
legal tender status in at least one jurisdiction, for the purpose of
this order, Bitcoin is included as a type of CVC.
3. Covered Financial Institution
The order defines a covered financial institution as having the
same meaning as ``financial institution'' in 31 CFR 1010.100(t).
4. CVC Exchanger
The order defines a CVC exchanger as any person engaged as a
business in the exchange of CVC for fiat currency, funds, or other CVC.
5. Peer to Peer (P2P) Exchangers
The order defines P2P exchangers to include persons engaged in the
business of buying and selling CVC.
6. Recipient
The order defines recipient as the person to be paid by the
recipient's covered financial institution.
7. Successor Entity
The order defines successor entity as any person that replaces
Bitzlato by acquiring its assets, in whole or in part, and/or carrying
out the affairs of Bitzlato under a new name.
8. Transmittal of Funds
The order defines transmittal of funds as the sending and receiving
of funds, including CVC.
9. Meaning of Other Terms
All terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meaning set forth in 31 CFR Chapter X and 31 U.S.C. 5312.
B. Prohibition of the Transmittal of Funds Involving Bitzlato
1. Prohibition
A covered financial institution is prohibited from engaging in a
transmittal of funds from or to Bitzlato, or from or to any account or
CVC address administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato.
2. Rejection of Funds and Condition on the Transfer of Rejected Funds
A covered financial institution will be deemed not to have violated
this Order where, upon determining that it received CVC that originated
from Bitzlato or from an account or CVC address administered by or on
behalf of Bitzlato, that covered financial institution rejects the
transaction, preventing the intended recipient from accessing such CVC
and returning the CVC to Bitzlato, or to the account or CVC address
from which the CVC originated.
C. Order Period
The terms of this order are effective February 1, 2023, with no
cessation date.
D. Reservation of Authority
FinCEN reserves its authority pursuant to Section 9714(a) to impose
conditions on certain transmittals of funds from or to Bitzlato, or
from or to any account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of
Bitzlato.
E. Other Obligations
Nothing in this order shall be construed to modify, impair or
otherwise affect any requirements or obligations to which a covered
financial institution is subject pursuant to the BSA, including, but
not limited to, the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), or
other applicable laws or regulations, such as the sanctions
administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's
Office of Foreign Assets Control.
F. Penalties for Noncompliance
The covered financial institution, and any of its officers,
directors, employees, and agents, may be liable for civil or criminal
penalties under 31 U.S.C. 5321 and 5322 for violating any of the terms
of this order.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Section 6106(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law 117-81) amended section 9714 of the
Combatting Russian Money Laundering Act (Pub. L. 116-283) to, among
other things, provide that the penalties set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5321
and 5322 shall apply to violations of any order, regulation, special
measure, or other requirement imposed under section 9714, in the
same manner and to the same extent described in sections 5321 and
5322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Validity of Order
Any judicial determination that any provision of this order is
invalid shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
order, and each other provision shall thereafter remain in full force
and effect.
Dated: January 18, 2023.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2023-01189 Filed 1-19-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P