The European Parliament adopts a ban on cryptocurrency transactions that are anonymous.
As part of the European Union’s extended Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing policies, a proposed prohibition on anonymous cryptocurrency transactions done through hosted crypto wallets has been adopted by the majority of the key committees in the European Parliament.
The recently enacted AML laws, which were authorized on March 19, impose restrictions on both cash transactions and anonymous bitcoin payments. The new regulations prohibit anonymous cash transfers above €3,000 in business dealings, and they outright forbid cash payments exceeding €10,000.The prohibition on anonymous cryptocurrency transactions by the European Parliament specifically targets hosted or custodial wallets provided by outside service providers, including centralized exchanges.
One of the two MEPs who voted against the prohibition was Patrick Breyer of the German Pirate Party. He claims that the legislation jeopardizes financial privacy and economic freedom. Breyer contends that the right to conduct transactions in anonymity is crucial and that the prohibition would essentially rob innocent people of their financial independence while having no impact on criminality.Breyer also voiced worries about the possible fallout from the EU’s “war on cash,” such as negative interest rates and the possibility of banks freezing the money supply. He underlined the need of preserving the freedom to make donations and payments online without having personal transactions recorded and bringing the greatest features of currency into the digital age.
The reaction of the cryptocurrency community to the EU’s regulatory actions has been conflicting. While some think the new AML laws are important, others worry they would impede economic activity and violate people’s privacy.
The presenter of the Sound Money Bitcoin Podcast, Daniel “Loddi” Tröster, asserts that the practical obstacles and ramifications of the current legislation support this viewpoint, citing its effects on donations and the wider implications for cryptocurrency use within the EU.The argument put out by those opposed to the prohibition is that transactions involving cryptocurrencies can be tracked on the blockchain, in contrast to cash, which is completely anonymous, and that law enforcement has been able to successfully prosecute offenders by finding suspicious patterns and patterns. Additionally, they note that there is little evidence to support the significance of virtual assets for the global financial system and that they are rarely used for money laundering.The argument put out by those opposed to the prohibition is that transactions involving cryptocurrencies can be tracked on the blockchain, in contrast to cash, which is completely anonymous, and that law enforcement has been able to successfully prosecute offenders by finding suspicious patterns and patterns. Additionally, they note that there is little evidence to support the significance of virtual assets for the global financial system and that they are rarely used for money laundering.
About The Author
