Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Public Information Collection 84 FR 63861

  • From: Charity Colleen Crouse
    Organization(s):
    No organizational affiliation

    Comment No: 62279
    Date: 1/20/2020

    Comment Text:

    Having distinct categories for classification -- along with appropriate certification of validity to engage transactional processes connected to those classification levels -- needs to be regarded profoundly. The processes of "bundling" transactional processes have been used for years to launder money and have not been anything close to adequately addressed within the U.S. Insofar as it is understood that in 2018 the Board of Exchange permitted the trade of cryptocurrencies without needing to be licensed, one has to address what the implications are now and in the future. I have for several years attempted to bring attention to the use of derivative agreements that have lacked appropriate disclosure, consent and "grounding" prior to engagement and trade. To subject someone who is NOT a licensed broker or trader, or who does not have access to licensed brokers or traders, to derivative agreements as part of transactional processes being leveraged by others who do is not only in violation of basic contract law concerning intent and disclosure upon inception of the contract, but also has the potential to subject those involved in the derivative applications to levels of risk that were not appropriately covered beforehand and are inaccurately assessed in terms of liability.

    A serious problem, especially in regards to public financing, is the inappropriate mixing of assets between different departments or sectors that have different levels of exposure to what is defined as "toxicity" but what can also be a way to either "write-off" a fine for being convicted of illegal activity or an attempt to cover up for ACTUALLY illegal transactions using the camouflage of what else is "bundled" on to the transaction. If one attempts to be fastidious in assuring that such "toxicity" is not permitted to pass through undetected and forestalled from clearing, then the rest of that which is processed together with it has the potential of being shut down or by association impacted in a manner that should not even be possible. It is also more difficult to appropriately define the problem and provide a possibility for recharacterization without more specificity. This has the potential to waste a lot of actual value and to allow a completely inaccurate and potentially inflated valuation of something that should otherwise not be permitted to process. If by disaggregation what is meant is a process by which specific categorization streams can be assigned so as to assure that there is not a mixing of assets that have different levels of necessary security inherent in their processing then this can be a positive development.

    The question, however, arises at the point of considering the data to be made available for a specific type of aggregation beforehand and what is made available during the timeframe in which it is aggregated. If the distinction regarding what sort of data streams or transactional processes are appropriate for aggregation are not addressed appropriately then disaggregation presents a possibility for laundering assets past a determinant point or being leveraged with a misvaluation. This leaves open possibilities for those intending to defraud to escape accountability and others who are not actually the providers of the value under consideration to be availed of merits or penalties they do not deserve.

    A word of caution: Failure to establish and define "limits" in regards to speculation, especially in derivatives, always runs the risk that the one who believes they have "control" over the assessment of the transaction are going to engage or be engaged at a level of risk they have not adequately covered. Indeed, a great deal of the current "liability" that is attempted for "leveraging" is directly connected to mischaracterizations in the beginning or another later stage of the transactional process and hence the "speculation" is potentially accounted for at one level of risk that actually masks the true risk inherent in the transaction. You can try to downgrade a person in such processes, especially if they have been denied the means to acquire confirmation of their actual level of participation, valuation and be compensated and taxed accordingly. You can "write-off" your own liability or taxes onto someone "downgraded" and dispossessed of the means to participate financially at the level of cognizance and capability for which they are otherwise qualified. But explicit acknowledgement of consciousness of the components of the aggregate negates the inherent default verbal contract terms if it is revealed that an act of "downgrading" is done so as to attempt to cover up for using that person or their assets to launder money or assets in connection with processes for which the other person is not otherwise qualified. Even if it is not formally acknowledged at the moment at which one attempts to confirm the transaction, this accrues as a liability. An appropriate accounting of these processes is also part of any possible "speculation."

    11:07 am CST
    Jan. 20, 2020

AttachmentEdit
No records to display.