Virtual Retail Currency Could Translate Into Not-So-Virtual Legal Nightmares

Written by Mark Rasch
May 23rd, 2013

Attorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today is a lawyer in Bethesda, Md., specializing in privacy and security law.

In a bid to attract new customers, Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) recently announced a new program in which it would give customers 50 Amazon “coins” to use in playing games and for other purposes. The idea is sort of like what happens at the boardwalk in the summer or at the gaming tables in Las Vegas. Rather than playing with real money (and risking losing real money), gamers play with coins or chips with an artificial “value.” It’s easier to lose 500 Amazon coins than it is to lose actual cash.

But in creating an artificial currency, and allowing it to be transferred and exchanged, retailers like Amazon may be getting themselves into potential legal trouble. In fact, they may be making themselves into an illegal unregistered money transfer company or even an unlicensed bank. Such is the problem with digital “money.”

Retailers frequently provide shoppers with things of value that have no serious legal consequences. Retailers provide discounts, BOGO (Buy One Get One) deals, coupons, GWP’s (Gifts with Purchase) and a host of other benefits to induce consumers to shop. In store, a consumer can be given a free cup of coffee or brisk iced tea. No legal problems there. Well, none worth mentioning here. But when a retailer gets into the business of creating a form of “currency” and allowing that currency to be exchanged with others, it may run headlong into the regulatory jurisdictions of the IRS, the Treasury Department, FINCEN, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, not to mention a host of bank regulatory agencies. The problem is that we really don’t know how to deal with “digital currency.”

A few years ago, a Florida dentist created an entity called eGold. It allowed a person to, for example, buy $10,000 in real life actual gold sitting in a vault somewhere in the Caribbean. If you wanted to transfer funds to another person, you could “sell” your gold to them, and eGold would change the title of your gold from you to them. That person could then sell their gold to eGold for the same $10,000 (well, less eGold’s take) and then withdraw the money.

Now there are federal laws on currency transaction reporting, and on the use of certain financial instruments, but in the case of eGold, technically there was no funds transfer. There was a transfer of title to a commodity (gold) and then a sale of that gold. Because of this potential loophole, eGold was a favorite of computer hackers, drug dealers, money launderers and even possible terrorist organizations.

Similarly, last week, the federal government seized the assets and accounts of people involved with the transfer of Bitcoin accounts.


One Comment | Read Virtual Retail Currency Could Translate Into Not-So-Virtual Legal Nightmares

  1. Al Says:

    I hate to bring this up because the IRS might be listening, but where do “frequent flyer” miles/credits fall into this discussion of an artificial and transferable currency?


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.