The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that
formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's
effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right?
Thanks for the info - should have read further back.
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
Guess we'll have to wait and see... any day now...
we can't simply say "the unique nature of Bitcoin, GIVES us the right to do what ever the fuck we want" ...
, to define bitcoin in the law book.