Search results

This paper aims to shed light into money laundering using bitcoin. Digital payment methods are increasingly used by criminals to launder money obtained through cybercrime. As many forms of cybercrime are motivated by profit, a solid cash-out strategy is required to ensure that crime proceeds end up with the criminals themselves without an incriminating money trail. The authors examine how cybercrime proceeds can be laundered using services that are offered on the Dark Web.

Focusing on service-percentages and reputation-mechanisms in underground bitcoin laundering services, this paper presents the results of a cash-out experiment in which five mixing and five exchange services are included.

Some of the examined services provide an excellent, professional and well-reviewed service at competitive cost. Whereas others turned out to be scams, accepting bitcoin but returning nothing in return.

The authors discuss what these findings mean to law enforcement, and how bitcoin laundering chains could be disrupted.

These cash-out strategies are increasingly facilitated by cryptocurrencies, mainly bitcoin. Bitcoins are already relatively anonymous, but with the rise of specialised bitcoin money laundering services on the Dark Web, laundering money in the form of bitcoins becomes available to a wider audience.

The purpose of this paper is to look at current discourse on the topic of crypto-currencies, more specifically Bitcoins, and their application to funding acts of terror. The paper clearly establishes the risks posed by this new payment technology and value transfer system to assist in the process of funding, planning and implementing acts of terror.

Publications, blogs and sites published and administered by terrorists groups and their supporters are examined to determine their interest in leveraging emerging payment and value transfer systems to facilitate the funding, planning and implementation of terror attacks. Press releases and other publications are also examined to determine whether crypto-currencies have been used by these groups in fund raising, fund transfer or recent terror attacks.

Although it is difficult to find concrete evidence of largescale use of Bitcoins and other crypto-currencies by terrorist groups and their supporters, there is strong evidence to suggest that they have been linked to a number of terror attacks in Europe and Indonesia. Supporters of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), jihadists and terrorist organisations are actively looking to and promoting the use of new and emerging technologies, such as Bitcoin, to mitigate some of the risks associated with traditional fund transfer methods. Some websites associated with terrorist organisations have started to collect donations in Bitcoins. Many Bitcoin ATMs and Bitcoin exchanges are located in countries that have seen significant numbers of foreign fighters join ISIS in the Middle East and are also positioned in countries that have seen increased risk of terror attack. These present a significant risk because they allow for the seamless, anonymous transfer of funds to and from terrorist groups and their supporters. The paper highlights the need for further in-depth research into reliable ways to circumvent the current difficulties experienced in differentiating illicit transactions from legitimate ones and establishing reliable means of attribution.

Using a document published by ISIS, which provides would-be jihadists detailed instructions on how they can get to Syria or Iraq without being detected, a set of models were created showing how this could be achieved using Bitcoins alone. From this scenario, red flag indicators and suspicious behaviour models have been created to determine whether they can be identified during detailed analysis of the Bitcoin blockchain which will be conducted in later stages of research.

This study aims to investigate the effect of risk tolerance on the individual choice of adopting Bitcoin in the form of making and receiving payment and receiving compensation.

The study uses data collected from an anonymous survey of 225 undergraduate and graduate students to measure their risk attitude using the general risk-taking propensity scale proposed by Zhang et al. (2018) and the risk-taking index, proposed by Nicholson et al. (2018). After controlling for a variety of personal traits, the study uses logistic regression to identify the predicted probabilities and marginal effects on individual choice of adopting Bitcoin.

The findings of this study suggest that individuals with a higher risk-seeking attitude are more likely to choose to receive payment for goods they sell in Bitcoin and more likely to choose to receive a portion of their compensation in cryptocurrency. Individuals in the higher-income groups are more likely to adopt Bitcoin 46% and 65% than their lower 14% and 45% and middle income 4% and 18% counterparts. While there was no statistically significant difference between males and females in adopting Bitcoin, respondents between the age of 26 and 29 were more likely to adopt Bitcoin. The effect on receiving gold was slightly smaller but highly comparable to that of receiving Bitcoin, which highlights a similar perception of risk toward the Bitcoin and gold.

The study uses a new data set collected by surveying 225 individuals and two different risk measurements to identify the relationship between perceived risk and Bitcoin adoption.

This paper aims to investigate feedback trading and autocorrelation behavior in the cryptocurrency market.

It uses the GJR-GARCH model to investigate feedback trading in the cryptocurrency market.

The findings show a negative relationship between trading volume and autocorrelation in the cryptocurrency market. The GJR-GARCH model shows that only the USD Coin and Binance USD show an asymmetric effect or leverage effect. Interestingly, other cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, Binance Coin, Ripple, Solana, Cardano and Bitcoin Cash show the opposite behavior of the leverage effect. The findings of the GJR-GARCH model also show positive feedback trading for USD Coin, Binance USD, Ripple, Solana and Bitcoin Cash and negative feedback trading for Ethereum and Cardano only.

This paper contributes to the literature by extending Sentana and Wadhwani (1992) to explore the presence of feedback trading in the cryptocurrency market using a sample of the most active cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin, namely, Ethereum, USD coin, Binance Coin, Binance USD, Ripple, Cardano, Solana and Bitcoin Cash.

One of the noteworthy developments in the world economy is the cryptocurrency in general and the bitcoin in particular. Although several types of cryptocurrency are in operation in the current digital economy, the most prevalent is the bitcoin, which was launched formally in 2009 by an individual or group known under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The value of bitcoin has increased to such an extend that it reached 19.7 billion US dollars by January 2, 2018 (Statista, 2018). As the bitcoin price touches a new high day by day, various terrorist organizations are using this cryptocurrency to anonymously finance their grotesque terrorist activities around the world by bypassing the surveillance mechanism of the banking system of the respective countries. Against this backdrop, this chapter aims to understand the mechanism of cryptocurrencies in general and the bitcoin in particular. Finally, it also endeavors to identify the trend of the bitcoin economy and its impact on nefarious activities in general and terrorism financing in particular. It has been revealed from the study that cryptocurrency economy has become so popular across the world that it has created an alternative virtual economy devoid of regulations from a specific country or a group of countries. By using vector error correction model (VECM), it had been observed that there exists a statistically significant long-run association between terrorist incidences and bitcoin transaction/circulation in the panel of 12 countries for 2010–2016. However, there is a huge concern over its way of operation and its unholy nexus with terrorism financing.

The paper explores the precarious balance between modernizing monetary systems by means of digital currencies (either issued by the central bank itself or independently) and safeguarding financial stability as also ensured by tangible payment (and saving) instruments like paper money.

Which aspects of modern payment systems could contribute to improve the way of functioning of today's globalized economy? And, which might even threaten the above-mentioned instable equilibrium? This survey paper aims, precisely, at giving some preliminary answers to a complex – therefore, ongoing – debate at scientific as well as banking and political levels.

The coexistence of State's money (i.e. “legal tender”) and cryptocurrencies can have a disciplining effect on central banks. Nevertheless, there are still high risks connected to the introduction of central bank digital currency, which should be by far not considered to be a perfect substitute of current cash. At the same time, cryptocurrencies issued by central banks might be exposed to the drawbacks of cryptocurrencies without benefiting from correspondingly strong advantages. A well-governed two-tier system to be achieved through innovation in payment infrastructures might be, in turn, more preferable. Regulated competition by new players combined with “traditional” deposits and central bank elements remains essential, although central banks should embrace the technologies underlying cryptocurrencies, because risk payment service providers could move to other currency areas considered to be more appealing for buyers and sellers.

We do not see specific limitations besides the fact that the following is for sure a broad field of scientific research to be covered, which is at the same time at the origin of ongoing developments and findings. Originality and implications of the paper are, instead, not only represented by its conclusions (which highlight the role of traditional payment instruments and stress why the concept of “money” still has to have specific features) but also by its approach of recent literature's review combined with equally strong logical-analytical insights.

In the light of these considerations, even the role of traditional payment systems like paper money is by far not outdated or cannot be – at this point, at least – replaced by central bank digital currencies (whose features based on dematerialization despite being issued and guaranteed by a public authority are very different).

No matter which form it might assume is what differentiates economic from barter transactions. This conclusion is by far not tautological or self-evident since the notion of money has historically been a great object of scientific discussion. In the light of increasingly modern payment instruments, there is no question that money and the effectiveness of related monetary policies have to be also explored from a social perspective according to different monetary scenarios, ranging from central bank digital currencies to private currencies and cash restrictions/abolition.

The originality/value of the following article is represented by the fact that it (1) refers to some of the most relevant and recent contributions to this research field, (2) moves from payment systems in general to their newest trends like cryptocurrencies, cash restrictions (or, even, abolition proposals) and monetary policy while (3) combining all elements to reach a common picture. The paper aims at being a comprehensive contribution dealing with "money" in its broadest but also newest sense.

This paper aims to explore the challenge posed by Bitcoin to regulators, particularly anti-money laundering regulators. Bitcoin is a crypto-currency based on open-source software and protocols that operates in peer-to-peer networks as a private irreversible payment mechanism. The protocol allows cross-border payments, for large and small items, with little or no transactional costs.

Case studies and case law are examined as are relevant reports by regulators.

Bitcoin is based on complex computer code supported by a robust community in a peer-to-peer network. Unlike other virtual currencies, Bitcoin appears to have obtained purchase and as such poses unique challenges to regulators.

Bitcoin is at a nascent stage and the evolution of the virtual currency is difficult to predict.

Those who study financial systems, anti-money laundering regimes and asset forfeiture laws will have an interest in this topic.

This is a new and emerging currency; there is limited literature on the implications of this currency to anti-money laundering systems.

The purpose of this paper is to show how global regulation of cryptocurrencies and other cybercurrencies can assist in addressing the challenges of attribution when investigating ransomware attacks and other types of cybercrime using these payment methods.

A literature review, looking at current academic research and discourse on the topic cryptocurrency regulation, is conducted to highlight current thinking and perceived difficulties in implanting a global regulatory framework. In addition, the research explores how governments have addressed the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and how regulation has been implemented. The research focuses on the regulatory approaches of Australia, Europe and the Americas to determine whether they could feasibly address the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and be implemented on a global scale.

To date, few sustained efforts have been made to regulate Bitcoin or other cybercurrencies. Where regulation has been introduced, it has often proven too costly to implement, thereby, stifling Bitcoin industry growth, or too ad hoc to function effectively. These regulatory pitfalls are substantiated by the continuing difficulty faced by law enforcement agencies, in identifying individual Bitcoin users and separating those that are using them for nefarious purposes from those that are using them for legitimate ones. These challenges appear to grow exponentially when it comes to prosecuting criminals for Bitcoin-related offences, due to the enormous lack of agreement within the justice system of most countries as to the appropriate legal definition for Bitcoin. This research highlights three characteristics that will be vital to the success of any global regulatory framework. These are consistency, clarity and cost-effective implementation. A regulatory framework for Bitcoin that lacks any one of these elements will fail to meet the requirements of every stakeholder in the regulatory process. A framework that is too costly to implement will stifle fintech innovation, subsequently depriving national economies of the multitude of potential benefits promised by fostering fintech entrepreneurship. Equally, a framework that is inconsistent will hamper the global cooperation necessary to combat Bitcoin-related crime.

This research evaluates research, discourse and regulatory responses from academic and governmental sources and discusses how a global response to cryptocurrency regulation will help address the growing problem of attribution when it comes to ransomware attacks, which has experienced a considerable spike in recent months.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global economic policy uncertainty, which has increased the need to investigate ways to mitigate the uncertainty. This study aims to examine the potential of cryptocurrencies as a hedge and safe haven avenue against economic policy uncertainty.

This study investigates the behavior of the five leading cryptocurrencies in relation to country-level and group-level economic policy uncertainty indices, as measured by the text-based method developed by Baker et al. (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2016, 131, 1593–1636). The research covers a broad range of emerging and developed economies from July 2013 to September 2020. The study employs the approach of Narayan et al. (Economic Modelling, 2016, 53, 388–397) to examine the hedging and safe-haven properties of cryptocurrencies.

This study finds that the top cryptocurrencies play a hedging role against economic policy uncertainty, with some exceptions. Additionally, there is evidence to support the idea that cryptocurrencies can serve as a safe haven during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, investors may benefit from using cryptocurrencies as a risk-management avenue during times of uncertainty.

This research contributes to the existing literature by testing the cryptocurrencies' hedging and safe haven properties in a new way, by analyzing their lead and lag behaviors using a recent and innovative approach. Additionally, it examines a wide range of emerging and advanced markets, providing insight into the potential of using cryptocurrencies as a risk mitigation avenue.

Professionals and academics alike hold polarized opinions about Bitcoin’s purpose and its fundamental value. This paper aims to describe Bitcoin’s unique features that make it such an intriguing asset and proposes a new way to consider Bitcoin and its underlying value.

In this paper the author discusses Bitcoin’s defining features that make it a unique asset. The author argues that Bitcoin should not be considered as a single purpose asset only, but rather as a new digital financial asset serving several functions, at least partially. The author discusses the role of Bitcoin in the traditional financial system, contrasts Bitcoin to gold, considers the implications of the continuance of expansionary policies on Bitcoin and discusses the impact of the emergence of cryptocurrencies as a new asset class on public policies.

In addition to functioning as a means of payment (at least partially) and a diversification tool, part of Bitcoin’s value proposition stems from its worth as a short position on modern expansionary monetary policies. Indeed, Bitcoin’s value should rise if expansionary monetary policies are maintained, amounting to a tool to short these policies, which should be considered in future attempts to value Bitcoin.

The author adds a new layer to the ongoing thought process by arguing of a function played by Bitcoin unaccounted for thus far by the literature. Additionally, the author describes the features and mechanisms, allowing Bitcoin to play that role.