The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) in Brazil has supposedly initiated a probe into the nation’s foremost banks. This is in order to examine claims of power misuse in the market and monopolization of cryptocurrency sector.
Per Reuters report, the inquiry was launched at the behest of the Brazilian Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Association (ABCB).
The search follows reports and accusations against several of the country’s top banking institutions. Six banks–namely Banco do brasil, Itaú unibanco, bradesco, Banco Inter, Santander brazil, and Sicredi–arecurrently under investigation. One brokering firm has launched a complaint against Banco do brasil, an asset management firm. Reuters report states:
“The complaint was made by the association in June, after the closing of the Atlas Technology account by Banco do Brasil and other brokerages by other banks.”
The CADE investigation has made banks to claim that the business accounts were closed owing to a non-availability of essential customer information required for money laundering enactment.
However, antitrust attorneys think that the institutions might be more critical in examining broker accounts. Other references, such as private bank – based sources, hint that there is no certainty that crypto currency brokers in the country will stick to benchmark anti – money laundering measures.
Anti-trust specialists explained the following to Reuters:
“[Illicit] activities should be avoided and banks should take restrictive measures when there are indications of crimes committed by their account holders. However, it does not seem reasonable for banks to apply restrictive measures a priori on a straight-line basis to all crypto-currency companies, without examining the level of compliance and anti-fraud measures adopted by individual brokerage firms individually conferring unlawful treatment per se on the brokerage business of crypto-coins.”
CADE might request certain records and exchange views with the central bank during the discussion process. Such records would be inspected before choosing whether the examination should be an managerial procedure. If this were the case, the Board could impose fines and other penalties on the platforms.
