in

Entire Binance Group UK Ban Imminent

Hey all. It seems that more banning of the entire Binance group within the UK is relatively imminent. Was provided the following link by Santander after discussing their decision to ban payments to Binance when I visited one of their branches in person.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/consumer-warning-binance-markets-limited-and-binance-group

“No other entity in the Binance Group holds any form of UK authorisation, registration or licence to conduct regulated activity in the UK.

The Binance Group appear to be offering UK customers a range of products and services via a website, Binance.com.”

The Santander representative I talked to said that their internal memos suggest that the entire Binance group is going to be banned first by other banks and then secondly by the FCA in the coming weeks. What do you all think?

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

4 Comments

  1. You think it’s bad now? read [THIS](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/o9fd7l/governments_planning_global_coordinated/) you’ll be horrified at many of the regulations the FATC is proposing, and as a member country our UK Government have committed to our FCA implementing once finalised.

    Like their proposals on hardware wallet usage restrictions, extracts below :- [SOURCE](https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/March%202021%20-%20VA%20Guidance%20update%20-%20Sixth%20draft%20-%20Public%20consultation.pdf)

    Draft updated Guidance for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and VASPs”

    The extracts quoted below are from page 37, clause 91, subsection c & page 60 clause 179 if you’d like to verify for yourself.

    Page 37 c)denying licensing of VASPs if they allow transactions to/from non-obliged entities(i.e.,private / unhosted wallets)(e.g.,oblige VASPs via the ‘travel rule’ to accept transactions only from/to other VASPs);

    Page 60 VA transfer to/from unhosted wallets 179.The FATF recognizes that unlike traditional fiat wire transfers, not every VA transfer may involve (or be bookended by) two obliged entities, whether a VASP or other obliged entity such as a FI. In instances in which a VA transfer involves only one obligedentity on either end of the transfer (e.g., when an ordering VASP or other obliged entity sends VAs on behalf of its customer, the originator, to a beneficiary that is not a customer of a beneficiary institution but rather an individual VA user who receives the VA transfertoan unhostedwallet), countries should still ensure that the obligedentity adheres to the requirements of Recommendation 16 with respect to their customer (the originator or the beneficiary, as the case may be). Countries should also consider requiring VASPs to treat such VA transfers as higher risk transactions that require enhanced scrutinyand limitations.

POPEYE FAIR LAUNCH NOW