Virtual currencies are financial innovations that have grown in number and popularity in recent years. While there is no statutory definition for virtual currency, the term refers to a digital representation of value that is not government-issued legal tender. Unlike U.S. dollars and other government-issued currencies, virtual currencies do not necessarily have a physical coin or bill associated with their circulation. While virtual currencies can function as a unit of account, store of value, and medium of exchange, they are not widely used or accepted. Some virtual currencies can only be used within virtual economies (for example, within online role-playing games) and may not be readily exchanged for government-issued currencies such as U.S. dollars, euro, or yen. Other virtual currencies may be used to purchase goods and services in the real economy and can be converted into government-issued currencies through virtual currency exchanges. In previous work, we described the latter type of virtual currencies as “open flow.” Open-flow virtual currencies have received considerable attention from federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies, in part because these currencies interact with the real economy and because depository institutions (for example, banks and credit unions) may have business relationships with companies that exchange virtual currencies for government-issued currencies. Throughout the remainder of this report, we use the term virtual currencies to mean open-flow virtual currencies, unless otherwise stated. Virtual currency systems, which include protocols for conducting transactions in addition to digital representations of value, can either be centralized or decentralized. Centralized virtual currency systems have a single administering authority that issues the currency and has the authority to withdraw the currency from circulation. In addition, the administrating authority issues rules for use of the currency and maintains a central payment ledger. In contrast, decentralized virtual currency systems have no central administering authority. Validation and certification of transactions are performed by users of the system and therefore do not require a third party to perform intermediation activities. A prominent example of a decentralized virtual currency system is bitcoin. Bitcoin was developed in 2009 by an unidentified programmer or programmers using the name Satoshi Nakamoto. According to industry stakeholders, bitcoin is the most widely circulated decentralized virtual currency. The bitcoin computer protocol permits the storage of unique digital representations of value (bitcoins) and facilitates the assignment of bitcoins from one user to another through a peer-to-peer, Internet-based network. Each bitcoin is divisible to eight decimal places, enabling their use in any kind of transaction regardless of the value. Users’ bitcoin balances are associated with bitcoin addresses (long strings of numbers and letters) that use principles of cryptography to help safeguard against inappropriate tampering with bitcoin transactions and balances. When users transfer bitcoins, the recipient provides their bitcoin address to the sender, and the sender authorizes the transaction with their private key (essentially a secret code that proves the sender’s control over their bitcoin address). Bitcoin transactions are irrevocable and do not require the sender or receiver to disclose their identities to each other or a third party. However, each transaction is registered in a public ledger called the “blockchain,” which maintains the associated bitcoin addresses and transaction dates, times, and amounts. Users can define how much additional information they require of each other to conduct a transaction. According to industry observers, examples of technologies used to increase the privacy of participants in virtual currency transactions include (1) anonymizing networks, which use a distributed network of computers to conceal the real Internet address of users, such as The Onion Router (TOR); (2) “tumblers” such as BitcoinBath and BitLaundry that combine payments from multiple users to obstruct identification through the blockchain; and (3) alternative virtual currencies such as Zerocoin and Anoncoin that aim to make transactions fully anonymous. the identities of participants in bitcoin transactions. In addition, researchers have developed methods to determine identities of parties involved in some bitcoin transactions by analyzing clusters of transactions between specific addresses. By design, there will be a maximum of 21 million bitcoins in circulation once all bitcoins have been mined, which is projected to occur in the year 2140. Once all bitcoins have been mined, miners will be rewarded for solving the math problems that verify the validity of bitcoin transactions through fees rather than bitcoins. directly or use third-party payment processors that take payments in bitcoins from buyers and provide businesses the payments in the form of a traditional currency or a combination of bitcoins and traditional currency. Figure 1 shows various ways that individuals can obtain and spend bitcoins. http://blockchain.info. (Accessed on Mar. 31, 2014.) Due to data limitations, it is difficult to calculate the velocity, or the rate at which bitcoins are spent, and the number of transactions between unique users in a given time period. https://blockchain.info. (Accessed on Apr. 1, 2014.) million commercial Automated Clearing House (a traditional payment processor) transactions per day in 2013. While bitcoin is the most widely used virtual currency, numerous others have been created. For example, dozens of decentralized virtual currencies are based on the bitcoin protocol such as Litecoin, Auroracoin, Peercoin, and Dogecoin. Similar to the bitcoin market, the size of the market for these virtual currencies is unclear. However, as of March 31, 2014, the total reported value of each of these currencies was less than $400 million (ranging from about $33 million for Dogecoin to about $346 million for Litecoin). Other virtual currencies that have been created are not based on the bitcoin protocol. One of the more prominent examples is XRP, which is used within a decentralized payment system called Ripple. Ripple allows users to make peer-to-peer transfers in any currency. A key function of XRP is to facilitate the conversion from one currency to another. For example, if a direct conversion between Mexican pesos and Thai baht is not available, the pesos can be exchanged for XRP, and then the XRP for baht. As of March 31, 2014, the total value of XRP was $878 million. Virtual currencies have drawn attention from federal agencies with responsibilities for protecting the U.S. financial system and its participants and investigating financial crimes. These include, but are not limited to, CFPB, CFTC, DHS, DOJ, SEC, Treasury, and the prudential banking regulators. The prudential banking regulators are the FDIC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC. Within Treasury, FinCEN has a particular interest in the emergence of virtual currencies because of concerns about the use of these currencies for money laundering and FinCEN’s role in Additionally, because virtual currencies (like combating such activity. government-issued currencies) can play a role in a range of financial and other crimes, including cross-border criminal activity, key components of DOJ and DHS have an interest in how virtual currencies are used. Relevant DOJ components include the Criminal Division (which oversees the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section), the FBI, and the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys (U.S. Attorneys). Relevant DHS components include the Secret Service and ICE-HSI. Money laundering is the process of disguising or concealing the source of funds acquired illicitly to make the acquisition appear legitimate. While federal agencies’ responsibilities with respect to virtual currency are still being clarified, some virtual currency activities and products have implications for the responsibilities of federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies. Virtual currencies have presented these agencies with emerging challenges as they carry out their different responsibilities. These challenges stem partly from certain characteristics of virtual currency systems, such as the higher degree of anonymity they provide compared with traditional payment systems and the ease with which they can be accessed globally to make payments and transfer funds across borders. Although virtual currencies are not government-issued and do not currently pass through U.S. banks, some activities and products that involve virtual currencies have implications for the responsibilities of federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies. These activities and products encompass both legitimate and illegitimate uses of virtual currencies. Examples of legitimate uses include buying virtual currencies and registered virtual-currency-denominated investment products. Examples of illegitimate uses include money laundering and purchasing illegal goods and services using virtual currencies. The goal of FinCEN administers BSA and its implementing regulations.BSA is to prevent financial institutions from being used as intermediaries for the transfer or deposit of money derived from criminal activity and to provide a paper trail to assist law enforcement agencies in their money laundering investigations. To the extent that entities engaged in money transmission conduct virtual currency transactions with U.S. customers or become customers of a U.S. financial institution, FinCEN has responsibilities for helping ensure that these entities comply with BSA and anti-money-laundering regulations. Under 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(1)-(7), money services businesses are generally defined as any of the following: (1) currency dealer or exchanger, (2) check casher, (3) issuer or seller of traveler’s checks or money orders, (4) provider or seller of prepaid access, (5) money transmitter, and (6) the U.S. Postal Service. FinCEN’s regulations define a money transmitter as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i).The term money transmission services means the “acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.” Id. services businesses are also required to monitor transactions and file reports on large currency transactions and suspicious activities. In addition, certain financial institutions must establish a written customer identification program that includes procedures for obtaining minimum identification information from customers who open an account, such as date of birth, a government identification number, and physical address. Further, financial institutions must file currency transaction reports on customer cash transactions exceeding $10,000 that include information about the account owner’s identity and occupation. FinCEN also supports the investigative and prosecutive efforts of multiple federal and state law enforcement agencies through its administration of the financial transaction reporting and recordkeeping requirements mandated or authorized under BSA. In addition, FinCEN has the authority to take enforcement actions, such as assessing civil money penalties, against financial institutions, including money services businesses, that violate BSA requirements. The prudential banking regulators—FDIC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC—provide oversight of depository institutions’ compliance with BSA and anti-money-laundering requirements. Therefore, these regulators are responsible for providing guidance and oversight to help ensure that depository institutions that have opened accounts for virtual currency exchanges or other money services businesses have adequate anti- In April 2005, FinCEN money-laundering controls for those accounts.and the prudential banking regulators issued joint guidance to banking organizations (depository institutions and bank holding companies) to clarify BSA requirements with respect to money services businesses and to set forth the minimum steps that banking organizations should take when providing banking services to these businesses. As part of safety and soundness or targeted BSA compliance examinations of depository institutions, the prudential banking regulators assess compliance with BSA and related anti-money-laundering requirements using procedures that are consistent with their overall risk-focused examination approach. In examining depository institutions for BSA compliance, the regulators review whether depository institutions (1) have developed anti-money- laundering programs and procedures to detect and report unusual or suspicious activities possibly related to money laundering; and (2) comply with the technical recordkeeping and reporting requirements of BSA. While most cases of BSA noncompliance are corrected within the examination framework, regulators can take a range of supervisory actions, including formal enforcement actions, against the entities they supervise for violations of BSA and anti-money-laundering requirements. These formal enforcement actions can include imposing civil money penalties and initiating cease-and-desist proceedings. CFPB is an independent entity within the Federal Reserve that has broad consumer protection responsibilities over an array of consumer financial products and services, including taking deposits and transferring money. CFPB is responsible for enforcing federal consumer protection laws, and it is the primary consumer protection supervisor over many of the institutions that offer consumer financial products and services. CFPB also has authority to issue and revise regulations that implement federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). CFPB officials stated that they are reviewing how these responsibilities are implicated by consumer use (or potential consumer use) of virtual currencies. Other relevant CFPB responsibilities concerning virtual currencies include accepting and handling consumer complaints, promoting financial education, researching consumer behavior, and monitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers. For example, under authorities provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB maintains a Consumer Complaint Database and helps monitor and assess risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services. CFPB also issues consumer advisories to promote clarity, transparency, and fairness in consumer financial markets. SEC regulates the securities markets—including participants such as securities exchanges, broker-dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers—and takes enforcement actions against individuals and companies for violations of federal securities laws. SEC’s mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Virtual currencies may have implications for a number of SEC responsibilities. For example, SEC has enforcement authority for violations of federal securities laws prohibiting fraud by any person in the purchase, offer, or sale of securities. SEC enforcement extends to virtual-currency-related securities transactions. Additionally, when companies offer and sell securities (including virtual-currency- related securities), they are subject to SEC requirements to either register the offering with SEC or qualify for a registration exemption. SEC reviews registration statements to ensure that potential investors receive adequate information about the issuer, the security, and the offering. Further, if a registered national securities exchange wanted to list a virtual-currency-related security, it could only do so if the listing complied with the exchange’s existing rules or the exchange had filed a proposed rule change with SEC to permit the listing. Virtual currencies may also have implications for other SEC responsibilities, as the following examples illustrate: SEC has examination authority for entities it regulates, including registered broker-dealers, to ensure compliance with federal securities laws, SEC rules and regulations, and BSA requirements. According to SEC officials, if a broker-dealer were to accept payments in virtual currencies from customers, this could raise potential anti- money-laundering issues that the broker-dealer would have to account for. SEC also regulates and has examination authority over investment advisers subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, investment advisers are fiduciaries. To the extent that an investment adviser recommends virtual currencies or virtual- currency-related securities, the investment adviser’s federal fiduciary duty would govern this conduct. If registered broker-dealers held virtual currencies for their own account or an account of a customer, SEC would have to determine how to treat the virtual currencies for purposes of its broker-dealer financial responsibility rules, including the net capital rule. CFTC has the authority to regulate financial derivative products and their markets, including commodity futures and options. In addition, CFTC investigates and prosecutes alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and related regulations. CFTC’s mission is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices, and systemic risk related to derivatives subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. CFTC’s responsibilities with respect to virtual currencies depend partly on whether bitcoin or other virtual currencies meet the definition of a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act. CFTC officials said the agency would not make a formal determination on this issue until market circumstances require one. According to CFTC, such circumstances could include virtual-currency derivatives emerging or being offered in the United States or CFTC becoming aware of the existence of fraud or manipulative schemes involving virtual currencies. The officials said that if prospective derivatives that are backed by or denominated in virtual currencies that CFTC determines to be commodities emerge, CFTC’s regulatory authorities would apply to those derivatives just as they would for any other derivative product subject to CFTC's jurisdiction. To carry out its regulatory responsibilities, CFTC would, among other things, evaluate the derivatives to ensure they were not susceptible to manipulation, review applications for new exchanges wishing to offer such derivatives, and examine exchanges offering these derivatives to ensure compliance with the applicable commodity exchange laws. Similar to SEC, CFTC has examination authority for BSA compliance—in this case directed at futures commission merchants and other futures market intermediaries—and acceptance of virtual currency payments by these entities could raise BSA compliance concerns.would also have to make determinations about the capital treatment of virtual currencies if these entities held virtual currencies for their own account or an account of a customer. Law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to DHS and DOJ component agencies and offices, have responsibilities to investigate a variety of federal crimes that may involve the use of virtual currencies and to support the prosecution of those who commit these crimes. Like traditional currencies, virtual currencies can facilitate a range of criminal activities, including fraud schemes and the sale of illicit goods and services, that may fall under the purview of federal law enforcement agencies. The emergence of virtual currencies has had particular significance for financial crimes. According to DOJ officials, the main law enforcement interests with respect to virtual currencies are to (1) deter and prosecute criminals who use virtual currency systems to launder money (that is, move or hide money that either facilitates or is derived from criminal or terrorist activities); and (2) investigate and prosecute virtual currency services that themselves violate money transmission and money laundering laws.FBI, ICE-HSI, and Secret Service, investigate financial crimes as part of their broader responsibilities. In addition, DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section prosecutes money laundering violations, and DOJ and DHS manage the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal crimes. Key laws that may apply to the use of virtual currencies in financial crimes include BSA, A number of DOJ and DHS components, including the as amended by Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, and anti-money- laundering statutes. Additionally, because virtual currencies operate over the Internet, they have implications for agency components that investigate and prosecute computer crimes (also called cybercrimes). For example, DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section stated that virtual currencies can be attractive to entities that seek to facilitate or conduct computer crimes over the Internet, such as computer-based fraud and identity theft. The section’s responsibilities include improving legal processes for obtaining electronic evidence and working with other law enforcement agencies in improving the technological and operational means for gathering and analyzing electronic evidence. The FBI, Secret Service, and ICE-HSI also investigate computer crimes. The emergence of virtual currencies presents challenges to federal agencies responsible for financial regulation, law enforcement, and consumer and investor protection. These challenges stem partly from certain characteristics of virtual currencies, such as the higher degree of anonymity they provide and the ease with which they can be sent across borders. In addition, the growing popularity of virtual currencies has highlighted both risks and benefits for agencies to consider in carrying out their responsibilities. As previously noted, some virtual currency systems may provide a higher degree of anonymity than traditional payment systems because they do not require the disclosure of personally identifiable information (that is, information that can be used to locate or identify an individual, such as names or Social Security numbers) to transfer funds from one party to another. When transferring funds in the amount of $3,000 or more between the bank accounts of two individuals, the banks involved are required by FinCEN regulations to obtain and keep the names and other information of the individuals, as well as information on the transaction itself. The customer identification information collected by the banks helps create a paper trail of financial transactions that law enforcement agencies can use to detect illegal activity, such as money laundering or terrorist financing, and to identify and apprehend criminals. However, in a transfer between two individuals using bitcoins (or a similar type of decentralized virtual currency) no personally identifiable information is necessarily disclosed either to the two individuals or a third-party intermediary. As a result, virtual currencies may be attractive to parties seeking to protect personally identifiable information, maintain financial privacy, buy or sell illicit goods and services, or move or conceal money obtained by illegal means. Further, virtual currency exchangers or administrators may be used to facilitate money laundering if they do not collect identifying information from customers and retain other transaction information. For these reasons, law enforcement and federal financial regulatory agencies have indicated that virtual currencies can create challenges for agencies in detecting unlawful actions and the entities that carry them out. For example, the FBI has noted that because bitcoin does not have a centralized entity to monitor and report suspicious activity and process legal requests such as subpoenas, law enforcement agencies face difficulty in detecting suspicious transactions using bitcoins and identifying parties involved in these transactions. Because they operate over the Internet, virtual currencies can be used globally to make payments and funds transfers across borders. In addition, according to agency officials, many of the entities that exchange traditional currencies for virtual currencies (or vice versa) are located outside of the United States. If these exchangers have customers located in the United States, they must comply with BSA and anti-money- laundering requirements. Due to the cross-jurisdictional nature of virtual currency systems, federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies face challenges in enforcing these requirements and investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes that may involve virtual currencies. For example, law enforcement may have to rely upon cooperation from international partners to conduct investigations, make arrests, and seize criminal assets. Additionally, violators, victims, and witnesses may reside outside of the United States, and relevant customer and transaction records may be held by entities in different jurisdictions, making it difficult for law enforcement and financial regulators to access them. Further, virtual currency exchangers or administrators may operate out of countries that have weak legal and regulatory regimes or that are less willing to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement. Virtual currency industry stakeholders have noted that virtual currencies present both risks and benefits that federal agencies need to consider in regulating entities that may be associated with virtual-currency-related activities. As previously noted, the risks include the attractiveness of virtual currencies to those who may want to launder money or purchase illicit goods and services. Another emerging set of risks involves consumer and investor protection—in particular, whether consumers and investors understand the potential drawbacks of buying, holding, and using virtual currencies or investing in virtual-currency-based securities. Consumers may not be aware of certain characteristics and risks of virtual currencies, including the following: Lack of bank involvement. Virtual currency exchanges and wallet providers are not banks. If they go out of business, there may be no specific protections like deposit insurance to cover consumer losses. Stated limits on financial recourse. Some virtual currency wallet providers purport to disclaim responsibility for consumer losses associated with unauthorized wallet access. In contrast, credit and debit card networks state that consumers have no liability for fraudulent use of accounts. Volatile prices. The prices of virtual currencies can change quickly and dramatically (as shown previously in fig. 2). Additionally, an SEC official told us that virtual-currency-based securities may be attracting individuals who are younger and less experienced than typical investors. The official expressed concern that younger investors may lack the sophistication to properly assess the risks of such investments and the financial resources to recover from losses on the investments, including losses resulting from fraud schemes. While virtual currencies present risks to consumers and investors, they also provide several potential benefits to consumers and business. Cost and speed. Decentralized virtual currency systems may, in some circumstances, provide lower transaction costs and be faster than traditional funds transfer systems because the transactions do not need to go through a third-party intermediary. The irrevocable feature of virtual currency payments may also contribute to lower transaction costs by eliminating the costs of consumer chargebacks. Industry stakeholders have noted that cost and time savings may be especially significant for international remittances (personal funds immigrants send to their home countries), which sometimes involve sizeable fees and can take several days. In addition, industry stakeholders have indicated that the potentially lower costs of virtual currency transactions—for example, relative to credit and debit cards—may facilitate the use of micropayments (very small financial transactions) as a way of selling items such as online news articles, music, and smartphone applications. Financial privacy. To the extent that bitcoin (or other virtual currency) addresses are not publicly associated with a specific individual, peer- to-peer virtual currency transactions can provide a greater degree of financial privacy than transactions using traditional payment systems, because no personally identifiable information is exchanged. Access. Because virtual currencies can be accessed anywhere over the Internet, they are a potential way to provide basic financial services to populations without access to traditional financial institutions, such as rural populations in developing countries.However, the potential benefit hinges on access to the Internet, which these populations may not have, and may be offset by the lack of protections against losses noted previously. Federal agency officials have acknowledged the need to consider both the risks and benefits of virtual currencies in carrying out their responsibilities. For example, the Director of FinCEN has testified that the emergence of virtual currencies has prompted consideration of vulnerabilities that these currencies create in the financial system and how illicit actors will take advantage of them. However, she also noted that innovation is an important part of the economy and that FinCEN needs to have regulation that mitigates concerns about illicit actors while minimizing regulatory burden. Similarly, the former Acting Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Criminal Division has testified that law enforcement needs to be vigilant about the criminal misuse of virtual currency systems while recognizing that there are many legitimate users of those services. Balancing concerns about the illicit use of virtual currencies against the potential benefits of these technological innovations will likely be an ongoing challenge for federal agencies. Federal financial regulators and law enforcement agencies have taken a number of actions related to the emergence of virtual currencies, including providing regulatory guidance, assessing anti-money-laundering compliance, and investigating crimes and violations that have been facilitated by the use of virtual currencies. However, interagency working groups addressing virtual currencies have not focused on consumer protection and have generally not included CFPB. FinCEN has taken a number of actions in recent years to establish and clarify requirements for participants in virtual currency systems. For example, in July 2011, FinCEN finalized a rule that modified the definitions of certain money services businesses. Among other things, the rule states that persons who accept and transmit currency, funds, or “other value that substitutes for currency,” are considered to be money transmitters. Additionally, in March 2013, FinCEN issued guidance that clarified the applicability of BSA regulations to participants in certain virtual currency systems. The FinCEN guidance classified virtual currency exchangers and administrators as money services businesses and, more specifically, as money transmitters. The guidance also specified that virtual currency users are not money services businesses. As a result, the guidance clarified that virtual currency exchangers and administrators must follow requirements to register with FinCEN as money transmitters; institute risk assessment procedures and anti- money-laundering program control measures; and implement certain recordkeeping, reporting, and transaction monitoring requirements, unless an exception to these requirements applies. According to FinCEN officials, as of December 2013, approximately 40 virtual currency exchangers or administrators had registered with FinCEN. In 2014, in response to questions from industry stakeholders, FinCEN issued administrative rulings to clarify the types of participants to which the March 2013 guidance applies. In January 2014, FinCEN issued rulings stating that the way in which a virtual currency is obtained is not material, but the way in which a person or corporation uses the virtual currency is. As a result, the rulings specify that two kinds of users are not considered money transmitters subject to FinCEN’s regulations: miners who use and convert virtual currencies exclusively for their own purposes and companies that invest in virtual currencies exclusively as an investment for their own account. However, the rulings specify that these two kinds of users may no longer be exempt from FinCEN’s money transmitter requirements if they conduct their activities as a business service for others. The rulings also note that transfers of virtual currencies from these types of users to third parties should be closely scrutinized because they may constitute money transmission. In April 2014, FinCEN issued another administrative ruling, which states that companies that rent computer systems for mining virtual currencies are not considered money transmitters subject to FinCEN’s regulations. FinCEN has also taken additional steps to help ensure that companies required to register as money services businesses under FinCEN’s March 2013 virtual currency guidance have done so. According to FinCEN officials, FinCEN has responded to letters from companies seeking clarification about their requirements. Also, officials told us that FinCEN has proactively informed other companies that they should register as money services businesses. As part of their oversight activities, NCUA and SEC have addressed situations involving virtual currencies, and other federal financial regulators have had internal discussions regarding virtual currencies. NCUA has had two supervisory situations in which credit unions were involved with activity related to virtual currencies. These situations emerged after reviews of credit unions found that their anti-money- laundering and antifraud measures needed to be revised in light of activity involving virtual currency exchanges. In 2013, NCUA issued a preliminary warning letter to a federal credit union that provided account services to money services businesses that also served as bitcoin exchanges. The warning letter was based on various conditions that NCUA determined could undermine the credit union’s stability. For example, the credit union did not have adequate anti-money-laundering controls in place for its money services business accounts. Further, the letter stated that the credit union should not have served money services businesses that were not part of the credit union’s strategic plan, and that serving these businesses was not consistent with the credit union’s charter, which called for serving the local community. The warning letter required the credit union to immediately cease all transactions with these money services business accounts and establish an appropriate BSA and anti-money-laundering infrastructure. As a result, the credit union ceased such activity and strengthened its BSA and anti-money- laundering compliance program. In 2012, NCUA provided support to a state regulator’s review of a credit union’s commercial customer. The state regulator found that this commercial customer was a payment processor—that is, a payment network that allows any business or person to send, request, and accept money—that had customers that were bitcoin exchanges. According to NCUA, the state regulator worked with the credit union to ensure that its BSA compliance program was adequate to monitor and address the risks associated with payment processors that serve bitcoin exchanges. The state regulator also worked to ensure that the payment processor’s risk management practices included sufficient antifraud and anti-money-laundering measures. The payment processor subsequently suspended all accounts that served virtual currency exchanges. In addition, SEC has taken enforcement action against an individual and entity that are alleged to have defrauded investors through a bitcoin- denominated Ponzi scheme.investor alerts, has begun to review a registration statement from an entity that wants to offer virtual-currency-related securities, and is monitoring for potential securities law violations related to virtual currencies. In addition, in March 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization for the securities industry, issued an investor alert about the risks of buying, using, and speculating in virtual currencies and the potential for related scams. See http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYourself/InvestorAlerts/FraudsAndScams/P456458. Also, in April 2014, the North American Securities Administrators Association issued an investor advisory on virtual currencies, related investment risks, and the types of investments that might involve virtual currencies. See http://www.nasaa.org/30631/informed-investor-advisory-virtual-currency. 2014, addressed fraud and other investment risks related to virtual currencies. SEC staff have begun to review a registration statement from a company that wants to conduct a public offering of virtual-currency- related securities and has received notice of a company offering a private virtual-currency-related security, relying upon an exemption from registration. In July 2013, the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust filed a registration statement for an initial public offering of its securities. The Trust is structured similarly to an exchange-traded fund and will hold bitcoins as its only assets. The Trust filed amended registration statements in October 2013 and February 2014, but the registration statement remains pending as of April 14, 2014, meaning that the Trust is not yet permitted to sell its securities in a public offering. Also, in October 2013, Bitcoin Investment Trust, a bitcoin-denominated pooled investment fund affiliated with SecondMarket, Inc. and available only to accredited investors, filed a notice with SEC indicating that it had sold securities in an exempt offering in reliance on Rule 506(c) of the Securities Act. Rule 506(c) allows an issuer to raise an unlimited amount of money, but imposes restrictions on who can invest in the offering and requires the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that those investing are accredited investors. SEC staff are also monitoring the Internet and other sources, such as referrals from other agencies, for potential securities law violations involving bitcoin and other virtual currencies. Further, all of the federal financial regulatory agencies we interviewed have had internal discussions on how virtual currencies work and what implications the emergence of virtual currencies might have for their responsibilities. While agencies generally told us that their conversations have been informal and ad hoc, some efforts have been more organized: In 2013, the Federal Reserve took several steps to share information on virtual currencies among the Board of Governors and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Among other things, the Board of Governors’ BSA and anti-money-laundering specialist conference included a session focused on FinCEN’s virtual currency guidance and recent law enforcement actions. The Board of Governors also circulated general information about virtual currencies within the Federal Reserve System to use in answering questions from media and the public about virtual currencies and federal financial regulatory actions to date. In 2013, SEC formed an internal Digital Currency Working Group, which aims to foster information sharing internally and externally. According to SEC, the working group consists of approximately 50 members from among SEC’s divisions and offices. In 2012, FinCEN held three internal information-sharing events on virtual currencies. These events covered issues including how virtual currencies compare to traditional currencies and risks related to emerging payment systems such as virtual currencies. Law enforcement agencies have taken actions against parties involved in the illicit use of virtual currencies to facilitate crimes. These parties have included administrators and users of centralized virtual currency systems designed to facilitate money laundering or other crimes, parties who have used virtual currencies to buy or sell illicit goods and services online, and virtual currency exchanges and online payment processors operating without the proper licenses. In 2013 and 2014, law enforcement agencies took actions against Silk Road, a black market website that allegedly accepted bitcoin as the sole payment method for the purchase of illegal goods and services. The website contained over 13,000 listings for controlled substances as well as listings for malicious software programs, pirated media content, fake passports, and computer hacking services (see fig.3). The FBI; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); IRS; ICE-HSI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Secret Service; the U.S. Marshals Service; and Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control investigated the case together, along with officials from New York as well as Australia, Iceland, Ireland, and France. In September and October 2013, law enforcement shut down the Silk Road website and seized approximately 174,000 bitcoins, which the FBI reported were worth approximately $34 million at the time of seizure. In February 2014, DOJ indicted Silk Road’s alleged owner and operator on charges including narcotics conspiracy, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, conspiracy to commit computer hacking, and money laundering conspiracy. In May 2013, law enforcement agencies seized the accounts of a U.S.-based subsidiary of Mt. Gox, a now-defunct Tokyo-based virtual currency exchange with users from multiple countries including the United States, on the basis that the subsidiary was operating as an unlicensed money services business. The seizure included U.S. bank accounts of Mt. Gox that were held by a private bank and Dwolla, an online payment processor that allegedly allowed users to buy and sell bitcoins on Mt. Gox. According to ICE-HSI, Mt. Gox had moved funds into numerous online black markets, the bulk of which were associated with the illicit purchase of drugs, firearms, and child pornography. At the direction of the U.S. Attorney’s office, ICE-HSI ordered Dwolla to stop all payments to Mt. Gox and seized $5.1 million from the Mt. Gox subsidiary’s U.S. accounts. Also in May 2013, law enforcement agencies shut down Liberty Reserve, a centralized virtual currency system that was allegedly designed and frequently used to facilitate money laundering and had its own virtual currency. Secret Service, ICE-HSI, and IRS investigated the case together, along with officials from 16 other countries. To shut down the site, FinCEN identified Liberty Reserve as a financial institution of primary money laundering concern under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, effectively cutting it off from the U.S. financial system. DOJ then charged Liberty Reserve with operating an unlicensed money transmission business and with money laundering for facilitating the movement of more than $6 billion in illicit proceeds.$40 million in seizures and had resulted in the arrests of five individuals. As of April 2014, this investigation had produced In April 2013, law enforcement agencies filed a civil asset forfeiture complaint against Tcash Ads Inc., an online payment processor that allegedly enabled users to make purchases anonymously from virtual currency exchanges, with operating an unlicensed money services business. Additionally, law enforcement agencies seized the bank accounts of Tcash Ads Inc. The Secret Service worked on the case with FinCEN and DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. From October 2010 through November 2012, law enforcement agencies convicted three organizers of a worldwide conspiracy to use a network of virus-controlled computers that deployed e-mail spam designed to manipulate stock prices. The organizers paid the spammers $1.4 million for their illegal services via the centralized virtual currency e-Gold and wire transfers. Charges included conspiring to further securities fraud using spam, conspiring to transmit spam through unauthorized access to computers, and four counts of transmission of spam by unauthorized computers. Law enforcement agencies have also taken other actions to help support investigations involving the illicit use of virtual currencies, including the following examples. The FBI has produced numerous criminal intelligence products addressing virtual currencies. These intelligence products have generally focused on cases involving the illicit use of virtual currencies, ways in which virtual currencies have been or could be used to facilitate crimes, and the related challenges for law enforcement. The FBI shares these products with foreign, state, and local law enforcement partners as appropriate. Through standing bilateral agreements governing the exchange of law enforcement information, ICE-HSI is arranging meetings with various international partners to exchange intelligence and garner operational support on virtual currency issues. ICE-HSI also developed the Illicit Digital Economy Program, which aims to target the use of virtual currencies for money-laundering purposes by defining and organizing the primary facets of the digital economy, building internal capacity, training and developing agents and analysts, engaging other agencies, and promoting public-private partnerships. Federal agency efforts to collaborate on virtual currency issues have involved creating a working group specifically focused on virtual currency, leveraging existing interagency mechanisms, and sharing information through informal interagency channels. For example, in 2012, the FBI formed the Virtual Currency Emerging Threats Working Group (VCET), an interagency working group that includes other DOJ components, FinCEN, ICE-HSI, SEC, Secret Service, Treasury, and other relevant federal partners. The purpose of VCET is to leverage members’ expertise to address new virtual currency trends, address potential implications for law enforcement and the U.S. intelligence community, and mitigate the cross-programmatic threats arising from illicit actors’ use of virtual currency systems. The VCET meets about once every 3 months. Federal agencies have also begun to discuss virtual currency issues in existing interagency working groups that address broader topics such as money laundering, electronic crimes, and the digital economy, as follows: The BSA Advisory Group—which is chaired by FinCEN and includes the prudential banking regulators, Treasury, federal and state law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and industry representatives— has addressed virtual currency issues in a number of ways. In May 2013, FinCEN provided a briefing on bitcoin, and in December 2013 three stakeholders from the virtual currency industry gave presentations on their business models and regulatory challenges. In addition, the BSA Advisory Group invited a representative of the virtual currency industry to join the group in 2014. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money-Laundering Working Group—which is currently chaired by OCC and includes the prudential banking regulators and CFPB—is in the process of revising the current (2010) FFIEC BSA/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual.revisions related to virtual currencies may include information on FinCEN’s March 2013 guidance and regulatory expectations that depository institutions should undertake a risk assessment with a particular focus on the money laundering risks posed by new products and services. The Secret Service-sponsored Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTF) includes 35 Secret Service field offices; federal law enforcement agencies such as ICE-HSI; and members of the private sector, academia, and state and local law enforcement. This group’s mission is to prevent, detect, and investigate electronic crimes, including those involving virtual currency. This group has conducted computer forensics and other investigative activity on various virtual currencies and made arrests of individuals who have used virtual currencies as part of their criminal activities. This group has also held quarterly meetings on virtual currencies to discuss legal and regulatory issues and trends in crimes involving virtual currencies. The Digital Economy Task Force was established in 2013 by Thomson Reuters (a multinational media and information firm) and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. This task force includes members from both the public and private sectors. Task force members from the federal government include representatives from the FBI, ICE-HSI, Secret Service, the Department of State, and the United States Agency for International Development. This group published a report in March 2014 on the benefits and challenges of the digital economy.continuing private and public research into the digital economy and illegal activities, investing in law enforcement training, rethinking investigative techniques, fostering cooperation between agencies, and promoting a national and global dialogue on policy related to virtual currencies. Among other things, the report recommended A number of other existing interagency working groups have discussed or addressed virtual currency issues to some extent. See appendix II for more information on these groups. Federal agencies have also started to collaborate outside of these working groups to help improve their knowledge of issues related to the emergence of virtual currencies and share pertinent information with various agencies. FinCEN and SEC have hosted meetings with industry representatives and consultants to discuss how virtual currency systems such as bitcoin and Ripple work and what legal, regulatory, technology, and law enforcement issues they present. These agencies have invited officials from other federal agencies to these sessions. FinCEN consulted with financial regulators and law enforcement agencies as it was formulating its March 2013 guidance on virtual currencies. These agencies included CFPB, CFTC, DEA, FBI, ICE- HSI, IRS, the prudential banking regulators, SEC, and the Secret Service. SEC notified CFTC of its review of the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust registration statement. FinCEN issued a Networking Bulletin on cryptocurrencies in March 2013 to provide details to law enforcement agencies and assist them in following money moving between virtual currency channels and the traditional U.S. financial system. Among other things, the bulletin addressed the role of entities that facilitate the purchase and exchange of virtual currencies and the types of records these entities maintain that could be useful to investigative officials. Also, the Networking Bulletin elicited information from its recipients, which in turn helped FinCEN issue additional analytical products of a tactical nature to inform law enforcement operations. FinCEN has also shared this information with several regulatory and foreign financial intelligence unit partners. CFPB officials said they had recently conferred on virtual currency issues with a number of domestic and international regulators, including the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Trade Commission, NCUA, OCC, Treasury, New York State’s Department of Financial Services, and the European Banking Authority. In addition, the officials said they had met with industry participants on these issues and conferred with interested academic and consumer group stakeholders, as well as law firms, consultancies, and industry associations. Although there are numerous interagency collaborative efforts that have addressed virtual currency issues in some manner, interagency working groups have not focused on consumer protection issues. Rather, as previously discussed, these efforts have focused on BSA and anti-money- laundering controls and investigations of crimes in which virtual currencies have been used. In addition, CFPB’s involvement in interagency working groups that address virtual currencies has been limited. GAO’s key practices on collaboration state that it is important to include relevant participants in interagency collaborative efforts in order to ensure, among other things, that these participants contribute knowledge, skills, and abilities to the outcomes of the effort. In addition, these key practices state that once an interagency group has been established, it is important to reach out to potential participants who may have a shared interest in order to ensure that opportunities for achieving outcomes are not missed. CFPB might be a relevant participant in a broader set of collaborative efforts on virtual currencies because virtual currency systems provide a new way of making financial transactions, and CFPB’s responsibilities include ensuring that consumers have timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial Further, CFPB’s strategic goals include helping consumers transactions.understand the costs, risks, and tradeoffs of financial decisions and surfacing financial trends and emergent risks relevant to consumers. Although interagency working groups addressing virtual currencies have not focused on consumer protection issues, recent events have highlighted the risks individuals face in buying and holding these currencies. For example, notable examples of bitcoin thefts by computer hackers have occurred in the past few years, including the theft of more than 35,000 bitcoins from a virtual wallet provider in April 2013 and 24,000 bitcoins from a bitcoin exchange in September 2012. More recently, in February 2014, Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy, stating that a security breach resulted in the loss of 850,000 bitcoins, the vast majority of which belonged to its customers. These bitcoins were worth more than $460 million when Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy. Mt. Gox subsequently reported that it had found 200,000 of these bitcoins in an unused virtual wallet. Certain parties have taken actions to inform consumers about the potential risks associated with virtual currencies, but these actions have occurred outside of federal interagency efforts and have not included CFPB. In April 2014, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the North American Securities Administrators Association issued joint model consumer guidance to assist state regulatory agencies in educating consumers about virtual currencies and the risks of purchasing, exchanging, and investing in virtual currencies. Additionally, from February through April 2014, a number of states issued consumer alerts about virtual currencies. On the international front, the European Banking Authority issued a warning to consumers in December 2013 about the risks involved in buying or holding virtual currencies. Federal interagency working groups addressing virtual currency issues have not focused on consumer protection, and CFPB has generally not participated in these groups, for a number of potential reasons. For example, the extent to which individuals using virtual currencies are speculative investors or ordinary consumers is unclear, and CFPB has received few consumer complaints about these currencies. incidents involving the use of virtual currencies for illicit purposes have made money laundering and other law enforcement issues primary concerns, and existing interagency working groups are primarily composed of agencies that share responsibilities for these matters. However, emerging consumer risks indicate that interagency collaborative efforts may need to place greater emphasis on consumer protection issues in order to address the full range of challenges posed by virtual currencies. Additionally, without CFPB’s participation, interagency working groups are not fully leveraging the expertise of the lead consumer financial protection agency, and CFPB may not be receiving information that it could use to assess the risks that virtual currencies pose to consumers. CFPB’s complaint intake system is not specifically geared towards virtual currency complaints. However, in February 2014, CFPB ran a query of its Consumer Complaint Database to determine the number of complaints that had mentioned virtual currency or bitcoin and found that only 14 out of about 290,000 complaints met that condition. evidenced by the loss or theft of bitcoins from exchanges and virtual wallet providers and consumer warnings issued by nonfederal and non- U.S. entities. However, federal interagency working groups addressing virtual currencies have thus far not emphasized consumer-protection issues, and participation by the federal government’s lead consumer financial protection agency, CFPB, has been limited. Therefore, these efforts may not be consistent with key practices that can benefit interagency collaboration, such as including all relevant participants to ensure that their knowledge, skills, and abilities contribute to the outcomes of the effort. As a result, future interagency efforts may not be in a position to address consumer risks associated with virtual currencies in the most timely and effective manner. To help ensure that federal interagency collaboration on virtual currencies addresses emerging consumer protection issues, we recommend that the Director of CFPB (1) identify which interagency working groups could help CFPB maintain awareness of these issues or would benefit from CFPB’s participation; and (2) decide, in coordination with the agencies already participating in these efforts, which ones CFPB should participate in. We provided a draft of this report to CFPB, CFTC, DOJ, DHS, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, OCC, SEC, and Treasury for review and comment. CFPB and NCUA provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendixes III and IV. In addition, CFPB, CFTC, DHS, DOJ, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, OCC, SEC, and Treasury provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. In its letter, CFPB concurred with our recommendation to identify and participate in pertinent interagency working groups addressing virtual currencies. CFPB stated that, to date, these groups have primarily focused on BSA concerns, anti-money-laundering controls, and the investigation of crimes involving virtual currencies. CFPB said that, as a result, its participation in these working groups has been limited. CFPB also stated that as consumer protection concerns have increased in recent months, its own work on virtual currencies and the work of other financial regulators in this area could benefit from a collaborative approach. In its letter, NCUA said that the report provides a clear discussion of the risks related to virtual currencies as well as a survey of current efforts in the regulatory community to address the related policy issues. NCUA also expressed support for increasing emphasis on consumer protection issues pertaining to virtual currencies. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to CFPB, CFTC, DOJ, DHS, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, OCC, SEC, Treasury, interested congressional committees and members, and others. This report will also be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or evansl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. This appendix shows how bitcoins enter into circulation through “mining,” how transactions are conducted, and how miners verify transactions (see fig. 4). In this appendix, we present some of the interagency working groups (including task forces and other interagency collaborative bodies) that have discussed virtual currency issues, and in some cases, taken specific actions. This list is based on information we obtained from the federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies we met with and is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Lawrance L. Evans, Jr. (202) 512-8678 or evansl@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Steve Westley (Assistant Director), Bethany Benitez, Chloe Brown, Anna Chung, Tonita Gillich, José R. Peña, and Robert Pollard made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Jennifer Schwartz, Jena Sinkfield, Ardith Spence, Andrew Stavisky, and Sarah Veale.

Summary: Virtual currencies—digital representations of value that are not government-issued—have grown in popularity in recent years. Some virtual currencies can be used to buy real goods and services and exchanged for dollars or other currencies. One example of these is bitcoin, which was developed in 2009. Bitcoin and similar virtual currency systems operate over the Internet and use computer protocols and encryption to conduct and verify transactions. While these virtual currency systems offer some benefits, they also pose risks. For example, they have been associated with illicit activity and security breaches, raising possible regulatory, law enforcement, and consumer protection issues. GAO was asked to examine federal policy and interagency collaboration issues concerning virtual currencies. This report discusses (1) federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agency responsibilities related to the use of virtual currencies and associated challenges and (2) actions and collaborative efforts the agencies have undertaken regarding virtual currencies. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed federal laws and regulations, academic and industry research, and agency documents; and interviewed federal agency officials, researchers, and industry groups. Virtual currencies are financial innovations that pose emerging challenges to federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies in carrying out their responsibilities, as the following examples illustrate: Virtual currency systems may provide greater anonymity than traditional payment systems and sometimes lack a central intermediary to maintain transaction information. As a result, financial regulators and law enforcement agencies may find it difficult to detect money laundering and other crimes involving virtual currencies. Many virtual currency systems can be accessed globally to make payments and transfer funds across borders. Consequently, law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting crimes that involve virtual currencies may have to rely upon cooperation from international partners who may operate under different regulatory and legal regimes. The emergence of virtual currencies has raised a number of consumer and investor protection issues. These include the reported loss of consumer funds maintained by bitcoin exchanges, volatility in bitcoin prices, and the development of virtual-currency-based investment products. For example, in February 2014, a Tokyo-based bitcoin exchange called Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy after reporting that it had lost more than $460 million. Federal financial regulatory and law enforcement agencies have taken a number of actions regarding virtual currencies. In March 2013, the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance that clarified which participants in virtual currency systems are subject to anti-money-laundering requirements and required virtual currency exchanges to register with FinCEN. Additionally, financial regulators have taken some actions regarding anti-money-laundering compliance and investor protection. For example, in July 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged an individual and his company with defrauding investors through a bitcoin-based investment scheme. Further, law enforcement agencies have taken actions against parties alleged to have used virtual currencies to facilitate money laundering or other crimes. For example, in October 2013, multiple agencies worked together to shut down Silk Road, an online marketplace where users paid for illegal goods and services with bitcoins. Federal agencies also have begun to collaborate on virtual currency issues through informal discussions and interagency working groups primarily concerned with money laundering and other law enforcement matters. However, these working groups have not focused on emerging consumer protection issues, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—whose responsibilities include providing consumers with information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions—has generally not participated in these groups. Therefore, interagency efforts related to virtual currencies may not be consistent with key practices that can benefit interagency collaboration, such as including all relevant participants to ensure they contribute to the outcomes of the effort. As a result, future interagency efforts may not be in a position to address consumer risks associated with virtual currencies in the most timely and effective manner. GAO recommends that CFPB take steps to identify and participate in pertinent interagency working groups addressing virtual currencies, in coordination with other participating agencies. CFPB concurred with this recommendation.