Liberty Reserve money-laundering case: five questions answered

Federal law enforcement has charged Liberty Reserve, a digital currency provider, with running a $6 billion digital money-laundering scheme. Prosecutors are calling it possibly the biggest money-laundering case in US history, and one that marks several firsts in the way cyber-finance is policed globally. Here five basic questions about the Liberty Reserve case, answered:

1. What is Liberty Reserve?

Richard Drew/AP/FIle
Preet Bharara, US attorney for the Southern District of New York, describes a chart showing the global interests of Liberty Reserve, during a news conference in New York, Tuesday, May 28, 2013. Arthur Budovsky,the founder of Liberty Reserve, was indicted in the United States along with six other people in a $6 billion money-laundering scheme described as 'staggering' in its scope, authorities said.

Before being effectively shut down, Liberty Reserve was a digital currency service, similar in function to PayPal, that allowed for anonymous monetary transactions on the Web. Unlike traditional banks and legitimate online commerce sites, Liberty Reserve’s users could set up accounts using fake names and unverified personal information – all they needed was an e-mail address. It was, prosecutors say, designed as a way for criminals to process money quickly, conveniently, and undetected. “If Al Capone were alive today, this is how he would be hiding his money,” said Richard Weber, head of the criminal investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), at a New York press conference that involved members of the Justice and Treasury departments, Secret Service, and Homeland Security.

The company was incorporated in Costa Rica in 2006 and operated “essentially as a black market bank” Manhattan US attorney Preet Bharara said at the press conference. Over a seven-year span, Liberty Reserve allegedly hosted about 55 million transactions totaling $6 billion related to criminal activity, including “credit card fraud, identity theft, investment fraud, child computer hacking, child pornography, and even narcotics trafficking,” Mr. Bharara said.

1 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.