SoylentNews

U.S. Bans Venezuela's Cryptocurrency

posted by mrpg on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:11AM   
from the ¿y-ahora-que? dept.

takyon writes:

U.S. bans transactions with Venezuela's digital currency

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order barring any U.S.-based financial transactions involving Venezuela's new petro cryptocurrency, as U.S. officials warned that it was a "scam" by President Nicolas Maduro's government to further undermine democracy in the OPEC country.

"The 'petro' is a desperate effort by a corrupt regime to defraud international investors," a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, strongly warning that any transactions in the petro digital currency would violate U.S. sanctions. "Investing in the 'petro' should be viewed as directly supporting this dictatorship and its attempts to undermine the democratic order in Venezuela," the official added.

Trump's order bars "all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token," issued by Venezuela's government since Jan. 9, the White House said in a statement.

Also at the New York Times.

Previously: Enter the "Petro": Venezuela to Launch Oil-Backed Cryptocurrency

---

Original Submission

• Re:You can brew Beer in your basement, too. Re:You can brew Beer in your basement, too. (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:53PM (2 children)

  by khallow (3766) on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:53PM (#656335) Journal

  It's totally irrelevant that you can brew beer in the dark secrecy of your basement. It's still the case that Uncle Sam outlawed Beer.

  The US didn't similarly outlaw the trade of Petros (which let us note, an executive order (EO) is not a law!), but rather that the US side can't handle the Petros directly. It remains not only easy, but legal to trade in many other currencies like the dollar and Euro to which those Petros can be easily converted by another party not subject to this EO.

  Parent

• An executive order most definitely IS law. An executive order most definitely IS law. (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:26PM (1 child)

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:26PM (#656353)

  • "That's not Law!" Why do you always take this dumb position?

    When people say that an EO is "not" law, that is just shorthand for saying than EO can be overturned by any President and does not require the much more complicated deliberative process of Congress.

    Yet, an EO is written within the framework established by law; it has the full force of law. An EO is just the President writing into the blank space that Congress has left for that purpose. It's the law of the fucking land.

    In any case, that's all irrelevant (as usual), because the point remains that such an EO is an example of anti-Capitalism.

  • It's not at all clear that it would be considered by the Executive branch to be perfectly legal to transact via intermediaries who are not subject to the EO; indeed, history has shown that such "structuring" is considered to be highly illegal.

    Such restrictions tend to be transitive.

  Your position is just stupid. Give it up.

  Parent

  • Re:An executive order most definitely IS law. (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:04AM

    by khallow (3766) on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:04AM (#656395) Journal

    "That's not Law!" Why do you always take this dumb position? When people say that an EO is "not" law, that is just shorthand for saying than EO can be overturned by any President and does not require the much more complicated deliberative process of Congress. Yet, an EO is written within the framework established by law; it has the full force of law. An EO is just the President writing into the blank space that Congress has left for that purpose. It's the law of the fucking land. In any case, that's all irrelevant (as usual), because the point remains that such an EO is an example of anti-Capitalism.

    Truth is an absolute defense against accusations of stupidity. The law in question was passed by Congress [akingump.com]. The EO merely interprets that law in a straightforward manner.

    In any case, that's all irrelevant (as usual), because the point remains that such an EO is an example of anti-Capitalism.

    As I noted earlier, a very easy to circumvent point which means it is not significantly anti-anything.

    It's not at all clear that it would be considered by the Executive branch to be perfectly legal to transact via intermediaries who are not subject to the EO; indeed, history has shown that such "structuring" is considered to be highly illegal.

    And you have to yet to mention why that would be "structuring". Look, we both know that one can "consider" anything to be anything. But why will that hold up in the courts?

    Parent