Showing posts with label Digital currency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Digital currency. Show all posts

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Micropayment Systems, Giving your two cents, digitally

In 1994, when the Web was still young, I attended an internet technology conference. A well-known programmer who had written some internet software for the Macintosh was discussing the commercial potential of the internet, and as an illustration, he told the following story (which I'm reconstructing from memory as best I can, as I've never been able to find independent confirmation of the details). Back then, there was a relatively new internet payment service called First Virtual, which employed a clever mechanism whereby one person could send money to another over the internet-even in an email message. A man signed up for the service but was skeptical of how well it would work, so he did an experiment. He posted a message on a newsgroup asking for help testing the service. Everyone who sent him US$1 through First Virtual would receive, for an entire year, a new limerick each day by email. Within three months, over 60,000 people had signed up. This was a mixed blessing-the experiment worked, but he encountered major technological problems in sending all those email messages, and soon discontinued the offer.


Enter Credit Card Information Here


First Virtual went out of business years ago, largely because of the proliferation of banks and services that allow merchants to accept credit cards over the Web. By comparison, First Virtual was awkward and low-tech. And certainly for most purchases one might want to make online, credit cards are a convenient way to do so. But there are a few major difficulties with online credit card purchases. First, they're fine for paying a merchant, but what if you want to send money to a friend or family member? If the recipient doesn't have a merchant account, you're out of luck. Second, lots of people don't have credit cards, or don't feel safe using them over the Web. And third, credit cards don't make sense for very small payments of less than a few dollars or so. The reason for this is that banks charge merchants a fee for every credit card transaction that consists of a fixed amount plus a percentage of the transaction. Because of the way the fees are calculated, a merchant could end up paying only $0.60 for a $10 transaction, but $0.33 for a $1 transaction. That means the $1 purchase is not very profitable, and a purchase of less than $0.33 would actually cause the merchant to lose money.


The term "micropayment" was coined to describe these very small purchases. And there are many good reasons you might want to make a purchase of just a few cents. For example, suppose-hypothetically, of course-that a Web site called "Interesting Thing of the Day" wanted to offer a subscription of some sort for just $1 per year (rather than, say, $10). Using credit cards, this would be a losing proposition. And yet, charging higher prices to offset the merchant fees makes the content less attractive to buyers. Other common examples of micropayments are music downloads, news stories, and Web-based services such as translations and image processing-to say nothing of real-world purchases such as feeding parking meters or buying a cup of coffee.


A Small Problem


In the past several years, numerous systems have been proposed to solve the micropayment problem. They vary tremendously in their details and implementations, some being more promising than others. Unlike credit card transactions, which anyone with a card can make instantly, almost every micropayment system requires users to take some preliminary steps to set up an account or enter billing information. In some cases these steps add just a few minutes to the initial transaction; in others, setting up an account can take a week or more. Of course, no one expects to be able to drop a coin into their computer and have it drop out of someone else's; a bit of effort is reasonable. But the convenience of a system, coupled with its fee structure, are the main factors in determining a system's success. I could not hope to do justice to the wide variety of micropayment systems here, but I'd like to describe a representative sampling.


One key concept in micropayment processing is aggregation, which simply means grouping several smaller purchases together and billing the buyer once (perhaps monthly) for the total amount. This takes the edge off the transaction fees for merchants, and it gives consumers the ability to make very small individual purchases-such as those 99¢ tracks at Apple's iTunes Music Store. Of course, you still need a credit card, and bank transaction fees still frustrate merchants, especially when an individual customer makes very few purchases. If a business doesn't do enough volume to aggregate its own sales, it can make use of a third-party credit card aggregator, which then also takes a cut of each payment. Another approach to aggregation, used by payment processor BitPass among others, is to sell prepaid cards that can be used to make small purchases at participating vendors. In this case, the aggregation happens up front, requiring less effort for the vendor and the payment processor, but more for the customer.


Good as Gold


A very different approach is taken by several companies that use gold (or other precious metals) as the basis of electronic transactions. Under this system, a company maintains a stash of gold securely in a bank vault somewhere. As a subscriber to the service, you can buy some of this gold, which (for a very tiny fee) the company will store for you. In other words, the gold itself doesn't move-only the ownership of a portion of it changes. You can purchase gold using cash, checks, credit cards, or whatever form of payment you want. Then at any time, you can log into your account and transfer any portion of your gold to another subscriber. (This can be designated according to value, like $0.02, or mass, like 0.02g.) Because it costs virtually nothing for the company to transfer ownership of gold from one account to another, transaction fees are negligible. And as the owner of any amount of gold, you can request payment from your account at any time, in the currency of your choice.


Gold-based electronic transactions have a number of advantages over aggregation. For one thing, they cost less for the recipient. For another, they can be used to transfer money between individuals, even if neither one is a merchant. And they do not require either party to have a credit card. Gold is even more appealing for international transactions. Most banks charge hefty fees to transfer money from one country to another-US$10 or $20 is not uncommon-making it unreasonable to use a check or credit card for small international payments. But transferring gold ownership internationally involves no currency conversion, so it's no more expensive than making a domestic transfer. There is a catch, however: you can only transfer gold to someone after you've purchased it yourself. So unless you're willing to maintain a balance of gold in your account, each transaction ends up being a two-step process: first put gold into your account, then transfer it to the other person. And, of course, you can only pay for a purchase with electronic gold if the merchant is set up to accept gold payments.


Unfortunately, for small person-to-person transactions, there's still no magic bullet. Services like PayPal and Western Union do enable an individual to send money to someone else electronically, but the transaction fees still make it impractical for amounts less than $1. Although many attempts have been made, no one has yet devised an electronic equivalent to putting cash in an envelope. -Joe Kissell


Courtesy: http://itotd.com/articles/376/micropayment-systems/

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Digital Currency Business E-Gold was Indicted for Money Laundering and Illegal Money Transmitting

WASHINGTON (Published on FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2007) - A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has indicted two companies operating a digital currency business and their owners on charges of money laundering, conspiracy, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey A. Taylor announced today.


The four-count indictment, handed down on April 24, 2007, and unsealed today, charges E‑Gold Ltd; Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc.; and their owners Dr. Douglas L. Jackson, of Satellite Beach, Fla.; Reid A. Jackson, of Melbourne, Fla.; and Barry K. Downey, of Woodbine, Md., each with one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, one count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business under federal law and one count of money transmission without a license under D.C. law.


Subsequent to the indictment, the Department of Justice also obtained a restraining order on the defendants to prevent the dissipation of assets by the defendants, and 24 seizure warrants on over 58 accounts believed to be property involved in money laundering and operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business. The restraining order does not limit the E‑Gold operation's ability to use its existing funds to satisfy requests to exchange E-Gold into national currency for customers of non-seized accounts, or its ability to sell precious metals to accomplish the same, once approval has been received.


According to the indictment, E‑Gold's digital currency, "E‑Gold," functioned as an alternative payment system and was purportedly backed by stored physical gold. Persons seeking to use the E‑Gold payment system were only required to provide a valid email address to open an E‑Gold account - no other contact information was verified. Once an individual opened an E‑Gold account, he/she could fund the account using any number of exchangers, which converted national currency into E‑Gold. Once open and funded, account holders could access their accounts through the Internet and conduct anonymous transactions with other parties anywhere in the world.


The indictment alleges that E‑Gold has been a highly favored method of payment by operators of investment scams, credit card and identity fraud, and sellers of online child pornography. The indictment alleges that the defendants conducted funds transfers on behalf of their customers, knowing that the funds involved were the proceeds of unlawful activity; namely child exploitation, credit card fraud, and wire (investment) fraud; and thereby violated federal money laundering statutes. The indictment further alleges that the defendants operated the E‑Gold operation without a license in the District of Columbia or any other state, or registering with the federal government, and thereby violated federal and state money transmitting laws. The indictment alleges that this conduct occurred at various times from 1999 through December 2005.


"As alleged in the indictment, the E-Gold payment system has been a preferred means of payment for child pornography distributors, identity thieves, online scammers, and other criminals around the world to launder their illegal income anonymously," said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division. "This indictment demonstrates that the Department of Justice, in cooperation with its law enforcement partners, will aggressively identify and prosecute those who knowingly enable and profit from transmitting the proceeds of criminal activity, online or offline."


"Douglas Jackson and his associates operated a sophisticated and widespread international money remitting business, unsupervised and unregulated by any entity in the world, which allowed for anonymous transfers of value at a click of a mouse," said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor for the District of Columbia. "Not surprisingly, criminals of every stripe gravitated to E-Gold as a place to move their money with impunity. As alleged in the indictment, the defendants in this case knowingly allowed them to do so and profited from their crimes."


"Today's indictment is the result of a two and a half year investigation by the U.S. Secret Service Orlando Field Office into an alternative payment system which has largely operated outside of normal banking industry regulations," said Secret Service Assistant Director for Investigations Michael Stenger. "This system has been exploited for more than 10 years by criminals who operate primarily via the Internet. Cooperation among investigators, including the IRS, the FBI and other state and local law enforcement, has enabled us to more effectively address emerging threats and evolving criminal methods, such as the use of electronic or digital currency to facilitate trafficking in illicit goods and services."


"The advent of new electronic currency systems increases the risk that criminals, and possibly terrorists, will exploit these systems to launder money and transfer funds globally to avoid law enforcement scrutiny and circumvent banking regulations and reporting," said Assistant Director James E. Finch, of the FBI's Cyber Division. "The FBI will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice and our federal and international law enforcement partners to aggressively investigate and prosecute any, and all, persons or organizations that use these systems to facilitate child pornography distribution, to support organized crime, and to perpetrate financial crimes."


"This is a new twist on laundering money through unlicensed money transmitters but it is nothing new for financial investigators," said Eileen Mayer, Chief of IRS Criminal Investigation. "The combined investigative skills of the law enforcement partners under the St. Cloud IRS Criminal Investigation and Secret Service Task Force proved to be a brick wall for E-Gold. We are proud to bring our financial expertise to this type of investigation that ultimately unravels fraud."


The conspiracy charge in the case relating to money transmitting carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. The federal law violation of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. The D.C. Code violation for money transmission without a license carries a maximum sentence of five years. The conspiracy charge relating to money laundering carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.


The case is being investigated by the U.S. Secret Service with the assistance of the IRS and the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division. Assistance is also being provided by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Criminal Division.


An indictment is merely an accusation and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.


Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/April/07_crm_301.html




Technorati : ,

Del.icio.us : ,

Zooomr : ,

Flickr : ,