Mar 16, 2024

Unveiling Constitutional Issues in the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act

The DAAML has stirred controversy due to its potential infringement on constitutional rights and privacy protections.

Unveiling Constitutional Issues in the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act

In December 2022, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act (DAAML), colloquially known as the Anti-Bitcoin bill. Purportedly aimed at combating money laundering and illicit financial activities involving digital assets, the DAAML has stirred controversy due to its potential infringement on constitutional rights and privacy protections.

Key Concerns:

The crux of the controversy surrounding the DAAML lies in its classification of non-custodial wallets, developers, and other participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem as money service businesses (MSBs). This categorization mandates obtaining licenses from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and adherence to rigorous reporting requirements. Additionally, the bill prohibits financial institutions from adopting privacy coins and other anonymity-enhancing technologies, sparking concerns about stifled innovation and individual privacy rights within the broader digital assets industry.

Violation of Privacy:

A critical flaw in the DAAML emerges from its attempt to regulate non-custodial wallets, nodes, and miners as MSBs. Take non-custodial wallets, for instance; they are explicitly designed for secure storage. Treating them as subjects of regulation is comparable to overseeing an individual's car keys as if they were the vehicles themselves. These components, including wallets, nodes, and miners, collectively form the Bitcoin ecosystem and, therefore, merit a holistic regulatory approach.

Moreover, Bitcoin nodes play a pivotal role in ensuring network security. Imposing stringent regulations on them poses a risk of stifling innovation and undermining the decentralized essence of the network. The violation of privacy rights extends to breaching the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as running afoul of existing privacy laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA).

Constitutional Concerns:

The DAAML faces substantial challenges grounded in constitutional principles. First Amendment concerns arise from the bill's classification of non-custodial wallets and developers as MSBs, effectively stifling free speech by regulating software development. Fourth Amendment concerns are triggered by the prohibition on anonymized digital assets, encroaching on the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Violation of Existing Laws:

Beyond constitutional implications, the DAAML infringes on existing laws. The FCRA, designed to protect consumer privacy, is violated by the bill's restrictions on anonymized transactions, potentially enabling credit reporting agencies to maintain indefinite records of individuals' financial information. Similarly, the GLBA's mandates regarding clear privacy notices and the right to opt-out are rendered ineffective by the proposed restrictions on privacy-enhancing technologies.

International and Human Rights Concerns:

The DAAML's impact extends beyond national borders, violating not only U.S. constitutional rights but also international human rights standards outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Articles 18, 19, and 22 of the ICCPR, which protect the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, are compromised by the sweeping surveillance measures proposed in the DAAML.

Conclusion:

While the DAAML aims to combat illicit financial activities, its introduction raises serious constitutional concerns and violates existing privacy laws. The attempt to regulate non-custodial wallets, prohibit anonymized digital assets, and restrict privacy-enhancing technologies poses a significant threat to individual privacy and rights within the Bitcoin space. Given the Bitcoin market's minimal illicit activity, the DAAML's blanket approach to regulation appears both unwarranted and counterproductive, necessitating a careful reevaluation of its provisions.

About the author.