CryptoCoinsInfoClub.com

California Bitcoin Law

Bitcoin Law :: Orange County, California Digital Currency Law Lawyer Roger Naghash

Bitcoin Law :: Orange County, California Digital Currency Law Lawyer Roger Naghash

Digital Currency Lawyer Serving California As Bitcoin and similar currencies become more common, it is growing increasingly important to know how to use them. Digital currency transactions can raise distinctive types of issues, involving regulatory compliance, transaction disputes, and criminal charges. Since Bitcoins origins in 2009, the law in this area has expanded dramatically. Keeping a keen eye on developments, Bitcoin attorney Roger E. Naghash has the knowledge to take on a broad range of virtual currency cases. From his office in Orange County, Mr. Naghash serves clients not just in Southern California but throughout the United States. Legal Guidance on Following Federal Regulations In 2011, the federal government began an effort to tax and regulate Bitcoin transactions. As more innovative forms of virtual currency are introduced, the government tends to respond with further regulations. It can be difficult to stay abreast of these fast-moving regulatory efforts, and a knowledgeable attorney can be very helpful in this regard. Many government agencies have shown an interest in the digital currency revolution. In March 2014, the IRS announced that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are assets. This means that they are subject to capital gains tax when they appreciate in value and are used in subsequent purchases. The U.S. Treasury Department also issued new rules in 2013, classifying some entities as money transmitters. This interpretation requires those entities to comply with transaction identification and reporting rules aimed at fighting organized crime and terrorism. Similarly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has shown a keen interest in some types of transactions involving the use of virtual currency in the stock market. Regulatory efforts c Continue reading >>

California Legalizes Bitcoin And Other Digital Currencies | Time

California Legalizes Bitcoin And Other Digital Currencies | Time

California Gov. Jerry Brown looks on during a news conference at Google headquarters on September 25, 2012. California lawmakers approved a bill Monday that lifted an outdated ban on the use of bitcoin and other alternative currencies, as more states seek to clarify and revise virtual currency laws. AB 129, which Governor Jerry Brown had signed on Saturday, will ensure that various forms of alternative currency such as digital currency will be legal in purchasing goods and transmitting payments, according to the bills text . The bill reflects the growing use of digital currencies, revising Section 107 of Californias Corporations Code that prohibits use of anything but the lawful money of the United States. In an era of evolving payment methods, from Amazon Coins to Starbucks Stars, it is impractical to ignore the growing use of cash alternatives, Democratic Assemblyman and the bills author Roger Dickinson said in a recent statement . Dickinson noted that points and rewards programs function as digital currencies, and thus would not have been legal without the passage of AB 129, which legalizes these community currencies, that is, alternative payment systems between businesses and customers. Continue reading >>

Bill Text - Ab-1489 Virtual Currency Businesses: Regulation.

Bill Text - Ab-1489 Virtual Currency Businesses: Regulation.

(1)Applicant means a person that applies for a license under this division. (2)Bank means a federally chartered or state-chartered depository institution or holder of a charter granted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to a person engaged in the business of banking other than deposit-taking. The term does not include either of the following: (A)An industrial loan company, state-chartered trust company, or a limited-purpose trust company, unless incorporated as a bank or the department has authorized the company to engage in virtual currency business activity. (B)A trust company or limited-purpose trust company chartered by a state with which this state does not have a reciprocity agreement governing trust-company activities. (3)Control means both of the following: (A)When used in reference to a transaction or relationship involving virtual currency, power to execute unilaterally or prevent indefinitely a virtual currency transaction. (B)When used in reference to a person, the direct or indirect power to direct the management, operations, or policies of the person through legal or beneficial ownership of voting power in the person or under a contract, arrangement, or understanding. (4)Department means the Department of Business Oversight. (5)Exchange, when used as a verb, means to assume control of virtual currency from, or on behalf of, a resident, at least momentarily, to sell, trade, or convert either of the following: (A)Virtual currency for legal tender, bank credit, or one or more forms of virtual currency. (B)Legal tender or bank credit for one or more forms of virtual currency. (6)Executive officer means an individual who is a director, officer, manager, managing member, partner, or trustee of a person that is not an individual. (7)Insolvent means Continue reading >>

Bill Text - Ab-1123 Virtual Currency: Regulation.

Bill Text - Ab-1123 Virtual Currency: Regulation.

For purposes of this division, the following definitions shall apply: (a)Commissioner means the Commissioner of Business Oversight. (b)(1)Virtual currency means any type of digital unit that is used as a medium of exchange or a form of digitally stored value. (2)Virtual currency does not include the following: (A)Digital units that are used solely within online gaming platforms with no market or application outside of those gaming platforms. (B)Digital units that are used exclusively as part of a consumer affinity or rewards program. (C)Digital units that can be redeemed for goods, services, or for purchases with the issuer or other designated merchants, but cannot be converted into, or redeemed for, fiat currency. (c)Virtual currency business means maintaining full custody or control of virtual currency in this state on behalf of others. (d)Fiat currency means government-issued currency that is designated as legal tender through government decree, regulation, or law, that customarily refers to paper money and coin and is circulated, used, and accepted as money. For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this division, the commissioner may adopt regulations pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). This division shall be known and may be cited as the Virtual Currency Act. A person shall not engage in any virtual currency business in this state unless the person is licensed or exempt from licensure under this division. The following are exempt from the licensing requirement described in Section 26002: (a)The United States or a department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any federal reserve bank and any federal home loan bank. (b)Money transmi Continue reading >>

States Where Bitcoin Is Legal! California Is Set To Legalise Bitcoin

States Where Bitcoin Is Legal! California Is Set To Legalise Bitcoin

States Where Bitcoin is Legal! California is Set to Legalise bitcoin Last updated on October 13th, 2017 at 10:49 pm Bitcoin is in the proccess of getting another friendly state in the United States of America. The state of California is about to become one of the states wherebitcoin is legal. The states representativesannounced late last week that they will soon grant bitcoin legal and money status. Bitcoin is not the only Cryptocurrency the state is considering giving legal and money status,they are considering all other virtual and digital currencies as well! Should that really happen, California will become the first state in thesse United States to declare bitcoin a legal and legit currency. The bill dubbed AB-129 Lawful Moneyreceived an almostperfect vote of vote of 7-1 fromCaliforniasSenateBankingand Financial Institutions Committee. The bill has moved to the senate floor for debate. Upon full senate approval of the bill, which is expected, it will be sent to Californias Governor Jerry Brown for final approval and amended into Californias law. California will join New Hampshire as one of the states wherebitcoin is legal. AB-129 Lawful Money is exactly what bitcoin needs right now. If this bill becomes law in California, we can expect other states to follow suit. Other states, especially bordering states, usually follow when California put their stamp of approval on something. Click here to see a list of states where bitcoin is legal! Another win for bitcoin is in progress! What do you think of the State of Californias making bitcoin officially a currency? Continue reading >>

Here's An Update On The New California Digital Currency Bill. | Coin Center

Here's An Update On The New California Digital Currency Bill. | Coin Center

Here's an update on the new California digital currency bill. We've been hard at work since Assembly Bill 1326 had its language replaced with new language earlier this week. As we noted in a recent blog post , this completely new language does nothing to clarify the status of digital currency users with respect to money transmission law (the original purpose of the bill) and contains language that could be interpreted to cover non-custodial services like mining, providing multi-sig services, or operating full nodes or lightning network nodes. We have been communicating with legislative staff and are happy to report that they have been very receptive to our concerns and suggested changes. We hope that the new bill will be amended to address our concerns. If that can be accomplished, the final bill may even be better than the previous version as there would be no capital requirements or other similar burdens on covered entities. That said, the bill today remains unchanged, and we cannot support it as it stands. For those of you who are interested in our complete analysis of it, you can read here a letter we have sent today to the California Senate Banking and Financial Services Institutions Committee, which will soon be holding a hearing on the bill. It lays out in detail our concerns with the bill and our suggested changes. Congress is positive on cryptocurrency in new major economic report extensively citing Coin Center work. The Joint Economic Committee of the Congress has submitted its 2018 Joint Economic Report. For the first time, the report includes a chapter on cryptocurrencies [PDF] that we are pleased to see is hopeful and positive about the effect these technologies could have on the U.S. economy: The buzz surrounding digital currencies resembles the internet Continue reading >>

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation Cryptocurrency should be regulated. Cryptocurrency should not be regulated. Cryptocurrency cant be regulated. How 5 states are approaching regulation. Cryptocurrency should be regulated. Cryptocurrency should not be regulated. Cryptocurrency cant be regulated. These are all common refrains emanating from the media these days. Now lawmakers across the United States and around the world are at a crossroads as to what is next in terms of this regulatory space. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency present a monumental challenge for legislators, requiring a broad understanding of blockchain technology, especially in terms of its impact on tech innovation. Amid assertions that the U.S. is falling behind in terms of Bitcoin regulation , it could be argued that the regulatory picture is becoming clearer in 2017 . Bitcoin Magazine asked Pawel Kuskowski, CEO and co-founder of Coinfirm , and Joe Ciccolo, president of the Illinois-based Bitcoin compliance firm BitAML , to offer some commentary about the regulatory activity taking place in five U.S. states Washington, Illinois, Hawaii, California and Florida and what the regulatory landscape may look like in the days ahead. Legislators in Washington state are building momentum around new rules for businesses offering digital currency services. Senate Bill 5013 provides a definition of virtual currency along with disclosure requirements of certain information to consumers. It also would require online currency exchanges within that state to maintain a surety bond. Finally, it offers definitional and clarifying changes for how money transmitters and currency exchangers are regulated under the Uniform Money Services Act. At the time of this writing, this bill, which was introduce Continue reading >>

California Passes Bill Defining Blockchain And Crypto Terms

California Passes Bill Defining Blockchain And Crypto Terms

California Passes Bill Defining Blockchain and Crypto Terms A draft law designed to amend Californias legislation to create legal grounds for the implementation of crypto-related technologies has been passed by the states legislature. Assembly Bill 2658 amends the California Civil Code, Government Code, Corporations Code, and Insurance Code to legalize the use of blockchain secured data and smart contracts in local and foreign commerce. The document contains important definitions of some key blockchain and crypto terms. Also read: New Bill Clarifies Crypto Taxation in Poland California State Legislature Adopts DLT Bill California democrat, 32-year old Assembly member Ian Calderon has scored a notable success in his efforts to push through a draft defining basic terms related to cryptocurrencies and the underlying distributed ledger technology (DLT). The states legislature has recently passed his Assembly Bill 2658 which introduces legal definitions of blockchain technology and smart contract, and revises others like electronic record and electronic signature to legalize and facilitate record keeping using DLT. The draft is co-sponsored by Senate democrat Bob Hertzberg. Several important laws will be amended through the adoption of the bill. This will include changes of the provisions of Sections 1624.5 and 1633.2 and adding a new Section 1633.75 to the states Civil Code. The act also amends Section 25612.5 of the Corporations Code, Section 16.5 of the Government Code, and Section 38.6 of the Insurance Code relating to electronic records. The existing Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of California specifies that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because they are in electronic form. It also states that a contract may not be Continue reading >>

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation

How Five States Are Approaching Bitcoin Regulation May 16, 2017, 01:58:58 AM EDT By Michael Scott, Bitcoin Magazine Cryptocurrency should be regulated. Cryptocurrency should not be regulated. Cryptocurrency can't be regulated. These are all common refrains emanating from the media these days. Now lawmakers across the United States and around the world are at a crossroads as to what is next in terms of this regulatory space. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency present a monumental challenge for legislators, requiring a broad understanding of blockchain technology, especially in terms of its impact on tech innovation. Amid assertions that the U.S. is falling behind in terms of Bitcoin regulation , it could be argued that the regulatory picture is becoming clearer in 2017 . Bitcoin Magazine asked Pawel Kuskowski, CEO and co-founder of Coinfirm , and Joe Ciccolo, president of the Illinois-based Bitcoin compliance firm BitAML , to offer some commentary about the regulatory activity taking place in five U.S. states - Washington, Illinois, Hawaii, California and Florida - and what the regulatory landscape may look like in the days ahead. Legislators in Washington state are building momentum around new rules for businesses offering digital currency services. Senate Bill 5013 provides a definition of virtual currency along with disclosure requirements of certain information to consumers. It also would require online currency exchanges within that state to maintain a surety bond. Finally, it offers definitional and clarifying changes for how money transmitters and currency exchangers are regulated under the Uniform Money Services Act. At the time of this writing, this bill, which was introduced in January, had passed both chambers of the state's legislature, clearing it to Continue reading >>

Virtual Currency Law In The United States

Virtual Currency Law In The United States

Virtual currency law in the United States This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . This article relies too much on references to primary sources . Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources . This article is an orphan , as no other articles link to it . Please introduce links to this page from related articles ; try the Find link tool for suggestions. ( Learn how and when to remove this template message ) United States virtual currency law is the area of financial regulation that applies to the buyers, sellers, and users of virtual currency . This regulatory structure consist of tax regulations and FINCEN transparency regulations between financial exchanges and the individuals and corporations with whom they conduct business. The regulatory and market environment[ edit ] The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S) describes Virtual Currencies (VC)s as a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value [and] does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. [1] Although, electronic payment systems have been part of American life since at least 1871 when Western Union introduced money transfer through the telegraph [2] and in 1914 introduced the first consumer charge-card," virtual currencies differ from these digital payment structures because unlike traditional digital transfers of value, virtual currencies do not represent a claim on value; rather the virtual currency are the value. The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA), through the Automated Clearing House (ACH) moves almost $39 trillion and 22 billion electronic financial transactions each year. [3] These electronic transfers of money through the ACH Network Continue reading >>

Cryptocurrency Laws And Regulations In The 3 Largest States By Gdp In America!

Cryptocurrency Laws And Regulations In The 3 Largest States By Gdp In America!

Cryptocurrency Laws and Regulations in the 3 Largest States by GDP in America! Laws, rules and regulations are the centerpieces of how governments run, irrespective if they are local, state or national. Consequently, we look for norms in order to see what paths these laws and regulations will follow and adapt. This is also true in the cryptocurrency and blockchain fields as well. In order to understand where these regulations currently stand, I will look at 3 largest states by GDP and briefly overview their main laws and regulations as they pertain to digital currencies and blockchain technology. Texas was the first state to officially deal with the issue of digital currency. In 2014, the Texas Department of Banking in Memorandum 1037 made clear that no money transmitters license is required to sell Bitcoin. In response to this, State Representative Matt Schafer, submitted a state constitutional amendment, which would allow the freedom to trade and use for commerce digital currencies without interference. H 85R, H.J.R 89, Tx. 2017 in 2017. However, the amendment was officially left pending in committee. The legislature is currently in session until May 27, 2019 and we will have to reevaluate any changes after its adjournment. New York, has some very antiquated laws when it comes to cryptocurrency. In 2016 a regulation called BitLicense was passed. BitLicense requires any operations related to virtual currencies to obtain state licensure. In essence, this is a way for New York to control cryptocurrency. A year later, in 2017, a bill (AO8783B) created a digital currency task force to determine the impact of cryptocurrencies on New York financial markets, and on 12/21/2018 it was signed by the governor. The law specifically creates the digital currency task force to provi Continue reading >>

Treatment Of Bitcoin Under U.s. Property Law

Treatment Of Bitcoin Under U.s. Property Law

Treatment of Bitcoin Under U.S. Property Law In this white paper , the authors analyze the treatment of bitcoin under applicable U.S. property law. The authors conclude that property interests should exist in bitcoin under such law, and that multiple sources of persuasive authority provide additional support for that conclusion. The paper is divided into 5 parts: Treatment of bitcoin under U.S. state property law -- an illustrative analysis using California law Scholarly consideration of bitcoin ownership rights under property law generally Treatment of bitcoin as property under other U.S. legal regimes Possible challenges to treating bitcoin as property Property interest in bitcoins held in custody Each part offers an in-depth analysis of legal issues. For example, under the discussion of property interests in bitcoins held in custody, the authors discuss the differences between specific and general deposits and how these concepts could be applied to deposited bitcoin in a custodial arrangement. Continue reading >>

California Bitlicense Exposes Fault Lines Among Cryptocurrency Advocates

California Bitlicense Exposes Fault Lines Among Cryptocurrency Advocates

California BitLicense Exposes Fault Lines Among Cryptocurrency Advocates I am the Blockchain Czarina. I bring you the world of blockchain. There is a rift emerging in the crypto sector. Californias AB 1489 (the CA Act) which is modeled on the Uniform Law Commissions (ULCs) Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act (the Model Act) seeks to regulate companies engaged in virtual currency business activity. Not everyone is on board. Notably, the CA Act includes a supplemental act which gave rise to an earlier rift between proponents of the ULCs model legislation and those who advocated for Wyomings approach. I wrote about that extensively here and here . By way of background, both the Supplemental Act and the Wyoming legislation create a regulatory framework for commercial transactions governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code involving digital assets. The Supplemental Act provides for an indirect ownership regime involving only virtual currencies. Whereas, the Wyoming approach governs the full array of digital assets and enables direct ownership. The current rift involving the CA Act extends to parties within the crypto industry. Two beltway crypto trade associations, Coin Center and the Digital Chamber of Commerce , support the Model Act or its incarnation in California, i.e., the CA Act. But a brand new advocacy group, Aquarian Advocacy Group (launched today), opposes the CA Act and promises to defeat it and other similar bills, wherever they are introduced. Margaux Avedisian, Aquarian Advocacy Group Executive Director, says the CA Act is completely crushing for start-up crypto companies, and problematic for numerous reasons. Avedisian points out that the legislation does not provide an on ramp for existing businesses, which means that covered bus Continue reading >>

Eff Opposes California's Impractical Bitcoin Regulation Bitlicense

Eff Opposes California's Impractical Bitcoin Regulation Bitlicense

EFF Opposes California's Impractical Bitcoin Regulation BitLicense The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading non-profit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world since 1990, is opposing Californias impractical Bitcoin regulation proposed as A.B. 1123. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world since 1990, is opposing Californias impractical Bitcoin regulation proposed as A.B. 1123. In August of 2015, EFF opposed a similar Bitcoin regulatory framework called A.B. 1326, better known as the Californian BitLicense. At the time, members of EFF communicated with the author of the bill and expressed the organizations concerns to lawmakers. In an article entitled A License to Kill Innovation: Why A.B. 1326Californias Bitcoin Licenseis Bad for Business, Innovation, and Privacy, EFF wrote : We have philosophical issues with A.B. 1326both the type of regulatory scheme its proposing as well as the timing of this regulation in relation to the development of new virtual currency technologiesand we also have concerns about how the bill is technically written. EFF then outlined the following issues with A.B. 1326: The regulation is premature; digital currency is an industry in its infancy. Having different regulations for cryptocurrencies in every state will create confusion for consumers. The bill could chill virtual currency innovation in California. The bills definition of virtual currency businesses is vague, so its impossible to tell what the bill will do. The application requires irrelevant data from the applicants, and applicants can be denied a license with no explanation with limited opportunity to appeal. In consideration of the above-mentioned philosophical issues Continue reading >>

California Introduces New Bill To Regulate Bitcoin And Crypto Businesses, Calls For $50,000 Penalty For Violations

California Introduces New Bill To Regulate Bitcoin And Crypto Businesses, Calls For $50,000 Penalty For Violations

California Introduces New Bill to Regulate Bitcoin and Crypto Businesses, Calls for $50,000 Penalty for Violations Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon has introduced Assembly Bill 1489, which would govern virtual currency business activity that takes place with or on behalf of residents. The bill is similar to New Yorks BitLicense, and would require companies to go through an approval process to conduct crypto-related activities in the state. This bill would enact the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act. The bill would prohibit a person from engaging in virtual currency business activity, or holding itself out as such, unless licensed or registered with the Department of Business Oversight, subject to a variety of exemptions. The bill does not consider virtual currencies (also known as cryptocurrencies and digital assets) to be legal tender, whether or not it is denominated in legal tender. It says virtual currency is a representation of value for exchange, storage of value, or unit of account. It defines virtual currency business activity in section 25, Exchanging, transferring, or storing virtual currency or engaging in virtual currency administration, whether directly or through an agreement with a virtual currency control services vendor. Holding electronic precious metals or electronic certificates representing interests in precious metals on behalf of another person or issuing shares or electronic certificates representing interests in precious metals. Exchanging one or more digital representations of value used within one or more online games, game platforms, or family of games for either of the following: Virtual currency offered by or on behalf of the same publisher from which the original digital representation of value was received. Legal Continue reading >>

More in cryptocurrency