Quote from: MSantori on October 01, 2013, 11:55:23 PM

I agree that it is a mess, but I'm not sure I agree with your point about (t). Why do you say the definition of "financial institution" is relevant to the foreign MSB analysis? Neither the definition of "money transmitter" nor "money services business" rely on the term "financial institution".

Because many of the rules apply to 'financial institutions' rather than MSBs specifically, and the definition of financial institution in (t) includes a money services business as defined in paragraph (ff).

Quote from: MSantori on October 01, 2013, 11:55:23 PM

Ultimately, I think this extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction is probably legally justified. Servicing a customer in a particular jurisdiction typically subjects you to that jurisdiction's ...jurisdiction for claims arising out of that transaction. That is, it probably satisfies constitutional "minimum contacts" and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." At least for the civil claims, I think it would survive judicial scrutiny.

What do you think?

I think you're probably right. Whether such a judgement would be enforceable is another matter.

Bitstamp's new verification requirements are mostly irrelevant to this, except insofar as having a verified address would allow them to exclude customers in certain problematic jurisdictions.

If a state prosecutor goes after bitstamp for not having a state license or surety bond, and Bitstamp knew they had customers in that state, it's not really going to matter how carefully they checked those names and addresses.