-
Laundering of crypto assets was very low, while laundering of cash was a success.
-
The failure of crypto laundering occurred mainly due to unclear regulations.
The Tax Reform approved in the middle of this year in Argentina included an “Asset Regularization Regime”, popularly known as “money laundering”. Since its entry into force, people and companies were allowed to externalize the possession of assets not previously declared to the Treasury, such as real estate, cash or crypto assets.
Although this bleaching regime It will be in operation until the first months of 2025, the possibility of declaring the possession of crypto assets expired on November 8.
According to provisional data as of October 31, of the total “laundered” assets, only USD 19 million in crypto assets were declaredwhile, for example, the declared cash exceeded USD 19 billion.
Only USD 19 million in cryptocurrencies were regularized. Source: ARCA – Customs Collection and Control Agency (exAFIP)
It can be seen how the regime was successful when it came to laundering fiat money, but, on the other hand, it did not achieve the same result in the case of cryptoassets. But what was this fact due to? Did the holders of cryptoassets not want to enter the regime and externalize their holdings? Or were there other decisive factors?
First of all, as we have analyzed in other article for CriptoNoticias, the regulations of the regime that specifically reach cryptoassets It has complications that do not exist for other types of assets.
For example, the holder of cryptoassets in a non-custodial wallet had to use a notary public to prove said possession as of December 31, 2023, also having to demonstrate what the historical acquisition cost of said cryptoassets had been. Or even, in those cases, the crypto assets must also be transferred to a PSAV (Virtual Asset Service Provider) registered in Argentina and kept there until the completion of “stage 1” of laundering (November 8, 2024, inclusive).
Instead, to “launder” cash, you simply had to open a special bank account and deposit the funds there.
Secondly, upon receiving transfers of cryptoassets to be laundered, PSAVs They requested that the owner of those assets demonstrate, through the “respective documentation”, that its origin was lawful. However, in many cases such a demonstration was difficult: what supporting documentation could be used to prove that the cryptoassets came from Mining activity carried out more than ten years ago? No, in most cases, Blockchain records were not enough…
Third, There are tokens that are not guarded by any local PSAVso how could they enter the scheme if they could not meet the requirement to transfer them to a PSAV? A clear example is Kaspaa token that is not accepted by any PSAV that operates in Argentina.
Finally, without intending to exhaust the list of factors that affected “crypto laundering”, we come across the fact that many holders of crypto assets, despite the benefits of the regime, refused to leave their assets in the custody of a PSAV. , even if it had only been for a few days.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to its author and do not necessarily reflect those of CriptoNoticias. The author’s opinion is for informational purposes and under no circumstances constitutes an investment recommendation or financial advice.
Crypto Keynote USA
For the Latest Crypto News, Follow ©KeynoteUSA on Twitter Or Google News.
