I posted another thread asking any 'lawyers' in the community to chime into this thread, I think the whole community would benefit as it being a general discussion thread and not isolated to the backwaters of a 'legal' section.

So I hope they don't move this to legal, since any bitcoin user/business should be interested in the general nature of the topic as a whole.

So maybe some lawyers form 'legal' area may chime in, if any lawyers are part of the community, but the topic IMO is of great general interest to the btc community as a whole.

If enough lawyers say YES, if you get an agency right with WU, you are a defacto money transmitter, it could be the fast track to general compliance.

However, a US AG may view it different, but if lawyers and judges look at the code/law and say WU is a money transmitter and there's nothing in the code/law to say its agents are not money transmitters, it may be a simple WU agent right satisfies compliance.

First a business taking a lot in with WU benefits by being an agent as to cost.

Second, WU is a licensed money transmitter in the eyes of the courts, and through long standing court precedence as to agency agreements and master license rights of 'agents' such WU agents should have a valid right to transmit and receive anything of value under the long standing court opinions on 'agency' since anything of value is now the definition of 'money' and why businesses need to be licensed money transmitters, and WU agents are licensed money transmitters through their agent agreements with WU.

Here's an example of a State saying WU is a licensed money transmitter in that state (UT in link).

So WU is a money transmitter, so its agents are acting under their money transmitter license, so that's the legal argument and thus far lawyers and judges I've discussed it with agree, WU agents are money transmitters so no extra license required they have a money transmitters license to well founded agency law precedence.

http://www.dfi.state.ut.us/MonTrans.htm

Another view on how WU is THE MONEY TRANSMITTER MODEL, so its agents are defacto money transmitters. WU is the epitome of what a money transmitter is.

http://www.regblog.org/2013/06/a-call-to-clarify-the-regulatory-scope-of-money-transmitter-laws.html