1

Some countries are treating dealing in Bitcoin as seriously as drug-dealing and money laundering [0]. Suppose that

  • you are a citizen of another country (and normally live in it) that does not have any wide-ranging laws against Bitcoin.

  • you have a Bitcoin account in your own country (e.g. an authorised online crypto exchange).

  • You then go on holiday to a country that does have such laws against Bitcoin, but you do not get involved in any buying/selling while you are there.

Assuming that the country you are visiting somehow comes to find out about your Bitcoin account back home, even though you never got involved in any buying/selling while you were on holiday, can that country's laws be applied against the Bitcoin account in your original country (or any other country)? In other words, for that particular country you are visiting (and as long as you are present in that country), is it an imprisonable felony for residents and visitors alike to have a Bitcoin account anywhere in the world?


[0] Draft law proposes 10-year jail term for dealing in cryptocurrency (7 June 2019)

2

Yes

When you enter the jurisdiction of a country, you are subject to its laws.

You are not, in general, subject to punishment for things you did before you entered its jurisdiction but if possession of bitcoin ( or anything else)is illegal in that country, then possessing that thing makes you subject to prosecution.

| improve this answer | |
  • "When you enter the jurisdiction of a country, you are subject to its laws" You are even subject to the laws of some countries without entering them. – Greendrake Jun 19 at 13:49
  • 1
    If you register a new Bitcoin account while away on Holiday, then of course it is illegal. But if you simply 'dont touch your existing Home Country Bitcoin account' (or any other Bitcoin account) the whole time while you are on Holiday, can you still be done for 'indirectly possessing something that is illegal in the Country in question, but the account is not physically based in that Country, and nor was it accessed from within that Country' ? That is the gray area.......... – Pat-S Jun 19 at 13:51
  • @Pat-S I don't think the area is all that gray... Assuming no use, access, or any other interaction with the bitcoin account while in the country and assuming it is perfectly legal in your country, there is no conceivable to face legal trouble. – A.fm. Jun 20 at 17:01
  • @Pat-S the Bitcoin isn't indirectly owned. It's owned by you. And you feasibly can access it from the country in which that is illegal. Because you possess it, and could access it, you are considered to have it with you. – Trish Jul 22 at 17:33
  • 1
    @RodrigodeAzevedo sure but imagine this from a customs agent “Do you own Bitcoin?” “Yes” - there’s your evidence. Don’t underestimate how often people give an honest, incriminating answer to a straight question. – Dale M Aug 6 at 12:17
0

It usually depends on the law in question. For the most part countries don't worry about what non-citizens get up to abroad. If you steal a car in France you are not going to be prosecuted by Japan if you should travel there, even though theft is a crime in both countries. However if you are in country X and trade bitcoins with someone in country Y in violation of the law of Y, then Y will probably view you as having broken their laws.

For instance, the USA applies this principle to computer misuse, as Gary McKinnon found out the hard way. He was in the UK, but attacked American computers.

| improve this answer | |
  • If you are Japanese and steal a car in Somalia, you could be tried in both Somalia and Japan (because you violated a specific Japanese law). – Trish Jul 22 at 17:35
0

for that particular Country you are visiting (and as long as you are present in that Country), is it an imprisonable Felony for Residents and Visitors alike to have a Bitcoin account anywhere in the World?

It largely depends on (1) the terms of the enacted law, (2) the legislative intent thereof, (3) the constitutionality of that law, and (4) its compatibility with the international treaties to which that country is a party.

It is common for legislative drafts to be amended multiple times before enactment. The nature of that back-and-forth process is political. The article reflects that the matter is just in its drafting stage. The terms and scope of initiative might be toned down if/when it becomes legislation.

The alleged motive for the prohibition is "the high chances of cryptocurrencies being misused for money laundering". Based on that, outlawing any and all use of cryptocurrencies seems excessively stringent because not all crypto-trading is for purposes of money laundering. Instead of deciding that some vague, probabilistic criterion (i.e., the "high chances") is a reasonable premise for a 10-year imprisonment, a smart legislator would ask experts in the crypto-industry for their estimate of what percentage of crypto-trading relates to money laundering.

Globalization and trading agreements de facto require lawmakers to ponder the ramifications their legislative initiatives would have in the economy and relations of that country. For instance, a needlessly stringent prohibition would lead crypto-exchanges to relocate --and pay taxes-- elsewhere.

Lastly, a prohibition across the board might raise constitutional issues as to commerce and also for impliedly presuming that all holders of cryptocurrencies (which is a form of barter) are money launderers.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.