Overview
Title
To strengthen the authority of the United States Secret Service to investigate various crimes related to digital asset transactions and to counter transnational cyber criminal activity, including unlicensed money transmitting businesses, structured transactions, and fraud against financial institutions, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill wants to give the Secret Service more power to catch bad guys doing sneaky things with digital money, like pretending to be someone else to steal money. It also asks some people to study how well the police can find these tricky money crimes online.
Summary AI
The bill S. 1273 aims to enhance the authority of the United States Secret Service in investigating crimes linked to digital asset transactions, including money laundering and fraud affecting financial institutions. It proposes amendments to existing laws to expand the scope of these investigations and extend certain enforcement capabilities. Additionally, the bill mandates a study by the Government Accountability Office to evaluate law enforcement's ability to detect and combat money laundering in cyber crimes. This legislation, introduced by Ms. Cortez Masto and Mr. Grassley, seeks to better address the challenges of transnational cyber criminal activities.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation titled the "Combatting Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2025" seeks to enhance the capabilities of the United States Secret Service in dealing with crimes associated with digital assets and combating international cybercriminal activities. It focuses on issues including unlicensed money transmitting businesses, structured transactions, and fraud on financial institutions.
General Summary of the Bill
Introduced by Senator Cortez Masto along with Senator Grassley, this bill aims to bolster the investigative authority of the Secret Service concerning digital asset transactions and a range of associated cybercrimes. Key provisions include expanding legal and operational capacities around money laundering and structured transactions and extending certain investigational timeframes. Notably, the bill assigns the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the task of analyzing the execution of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, particularly in cyber contexts.
Summary of Significant Issues
- Expansion of the Secret Service's Authority:
The bill allows for broader surveillance, which raises potential civil liberties concerns due to increased policing powers. Additionally, the legally complex language and cross-references to other codes may obscure understanding for the wider public.
Timeline Changes in Financial Regulations:
Certain amendments, such as changing timeframes from 5 to 10 years, lack detailed justification in the bill text, leaving questions about their necessity unaddressed.
Vagueness in Legislative Amendments:
Some sections, notably in the amendments to previous acts like the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act, are unclear in their implications, which may hinder public and stakeholder understanding.
Complex Reporting Requirements:
- The mandated study by the GAO on cyber-related money laundering could be constrained by a potentially short 1-year timeframe given the complexity of the issues to be studied.
Impact on the Public
The bill's broad scope promises to tighten the grip on cybercrimes, thereby potentially increasing digital security for citizens who engage in online financial activities. However, the potential for overreach in surveillance powers could ignite privacy concerns among civil liberties advocates. For a general audience, the bill may reinforce confidence in the protective measures surrounding digital asset transactions but simultaneously raise awareness of the expanding surveillance capabilities of government agencies.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Financial Institutions: The Act could impose additional compliance requirements as the Secret Service expands its reach, especially towards activities defined broadly as structured transactions.
Law Enforcement and Regulatory Agencies: These bodies might see increased responsibilities and potential resource allocation challenges. The Secret Service, in particular, stands to gain both in terms of authority and operational scope.
Civil Liberties Organizations: The expansion of investigatory powers likely presents both a challenge and an opportunity for these groups to advocate for balanced measures that protect individual privacy rights.
In conclusion, while the bill potentially strengthens regulatory frameworks against emerging cyber threats—and thus enhances security for digital transactions—its broader implications on privacy and civil liberties should be carefully scrutinized. Engaging in thorough public discourse may help balance the need for security with privacy rights protection.
Issues
The expansion of investigative authorities for the United States Secret Service as detailed in Section 2 raises concerns about potential increased surveillance or policing powers, which could infringe on civil liberties. The broad insertion of offenses like 'money laundering, structured transactions' may lead to expansive and potentially overreaching interpretations of the law.
Section 3 regarding the FinCEN exchange extends a timeframe from 5 years to 10 years without providing justification or clarity on the impact of this change, raising questions about its necessity and the potential for increased administrative expenses.
Section 4 lacks context on the amendment to the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act of 2019, specifically what the change from '6' to '10' signifies, which limits public understanding of its implications.
In Section 2, the use of legal jargon and reference to specific legal codes without explanation can obscure the intended changes from the general public, reducing transparency and accessibility.
The report mandated in Section 5 requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an evaluation on complex subjects like cybercrime money laundering detection. There are concerns about whether the specified timeframe of '1 year' is adequate for such an extensive review, and the lack of clarity on evaluation metrics may lead to ambiguous results.
Section 1 provides only a short title without any substantive provisions or clear details about the Act, which can cause ambiguity and confusion among the stakeholders and the public about the legislation's true intent and scope.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section specifies that the official name for the legislation is the “Combatting Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2025.”
2. Expansion of United States Secret Service investigative authorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 3056(b) of title 18 expands the investigative powers of the United States Secret Service. It now includes authority over cases of money laundering and structured transactions and makes it clear that these powers apply to all financial institutions as defined in section 5312 of title 31.
3. FinCEN exchange Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies a law in the United States Code to extend the period from 5 years to 10 years in a specified part of the text related to FinCEN.
4. International financial institutions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act of 2019, changing a specific reference from "6" to "10".
5. Report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress on how well the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 is being carried out, specifically focusing on how law enforcement can identify and prevent money laundering in cyber crimes. This report must be submitted within one year of the law being enacted.