2015-Jan: E-mail conversation with Estonian Ministry of Finance representatives Veronika Mets and Taivo Põrk. Layout edited for clarity.
What I am trying to find out is if there was any decent analysis done in determining the legal status of Bitcoin. And if so when this was made public.
From: Otto de Voogd To: info@fin.ee Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:29:19 +0100 Subject: teabenõue
Tere, Under Estonia's public information act, known in Estonian as a teabenõue, I hereby request the information listed below from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia. 1. Did the Ministry of Finance make the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? 2. If not, was the Ministry of Finance involved in any way in the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? If the Ministry of Finance was involved in any way please also provide answers to the following questions: 3. When was the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method made? Please provide the exact date on which this decision was made. 4. What process was followed in making this decision? 5. Which Estonian institutions, agencies, or organizations were involved in the decision? 6. Were institutions, agencies, or organizations from other countries involved in the decision? 7. Was anyone else, not mentioned above, involved in making this decision or giving advice? 8. Please provide the relevant minutes of all relevant meetings where the legal status of Bitcoin was discussed. 9. When and how did the Ministry of Finance first make public the classification of Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Regards, Otto de Voogd [snip]
From: Mari-Ann Meikas To: Otto de Voogd Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 07:23:15 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Tere! Rahandusministeerium on kätte saanud Teie poolt esitatud teabenõude. Lugupidamisega Rahandusministeerium
While none of my questions pertain to any sort of legal advice or explanation of the law, Mrs Veronika Mets feels the need to mention where to get legal aid.
All her answers, while interesting are about the law and how the law was made. Of course none of that actually answers my questions. I want to find out how it was decided that this is the law that applies to Bitcoin, not how this law was made.
Futhermore she claims that: "Ministry of Finance is transparent in its work [...]" but in the same e-mail she says "(relevant minutes cannot be made publicly available according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3))."
I guess that if you keep repeating often enough how transparent you are, maybe people will believe it.
Then she tries to weasel out by claiming that other countries have also applied existing laws to Bitcoin. While true, those other countries have tended to publish that information after doing a thorough analysis of Bitcoin in order to decide on its legal classification and *before* they started to attack people who are active with Bitcoins. Two important steps that were skipped by Estonia.
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Subject: Respond to your letter "teabenõue" Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:20:06 +0200
Dear Mr. De Voogd You have sent letter to Ministry of Finance of Estonia which includes request for explanations and information. According to Response to Memoranda and Requests for Explanations and Submission of Collective Addresses Act (§ 2 (2) and § 3) we are able to respond to your letter only in part which falls within the scope of the request for legal explanation of legal acts prepared by Ministry of Finance of Estonia. As for information (documents) you are requesting we are able to provide you information which is not classified as information for internal use according to Public Information Act § 35. Providing legal explanations means explaining the content, meaning and/or aim of specific law and/or its concrete section, paragraph or article and is not same as giving legal aid which means giving legal assessment of specific vital part/set of facts. For legal aid (if necessary) please contact lawyers (e.g. Estonian Bar Association: https://www.advokatuur.ee/eng/frontpage). According to Language Act we could answer your letter in Estonian but as act of will we will respond you in English (language used in your letter). Question no 1: Did the Ministry of Finance make the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? Ministry of Finance has responsibility to make policy in area of combating money laundering and terrorism financing, including drafting relevant regulations, such as for example Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (hereinafter MLTFPA). According to MLTFPA § 6 (4) provider of services of alternative means of payment is a person who in its economic or professional activities and through a communications, transfer or clearing system buys, sells or mediates funds of monetary value by which financial obligations can be performed or which can be exchanged for an official currency, but who is not a person specified in subsection (1) of MLTFPA or a financial institution for the purposes of the Credit Institutions Act. Ministry of Finance is in opinion that § 6 (4) of MLTFPA covers also relevant activities in Bitcoins and therefore other relevant obligations in MLTFPA apply (e.g. § 15 (8), § 15 & etc of MLTFPA). Please see also our answer to your question number 3 which describes the reasons for such approach and our answer to your question no 4. Question no 2: If not, was the Ministry of Finance involved in any way in the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? Please see the answer to question number 1. Question no 3: When was the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method made? Please provide the exact date on which this decision was made. As you may be well aware there are very many unconventional methods of payments used via communication systems (e.g. “virtual currencies”) and Bitcoin is only one of them. The aim of MLTFPA § 6 (4) is to cover all possible unconventional methods of payments used via communication systems in way and extent it is provided in definition of provider of services of alternative means of payment. The main reasons for such approach are identified certain higher risks in money laundering and terrorism financing area in Estonia and obligation to follow relevant FATF (Financial Action Task Force, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/) international standards on combating money laundering and terrorism financing which require countries to pay attention to new technologies and adopt measures taking into consideration their national risks. The results of risk analyses, reasons and explanations for MLTFPA relevant provisions (§ 6 (4), § 15 (8), § 52 & etc of MLTFPA) are described in details in Explanatory Memorandum to MLTFPA adopted in 19.12.2007. Please note that Explanatory Memorandum to MLTFPA includes also for example following explanation: Provisions of the Model Law on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing prepared by the IMF and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime18 and the FATF’s materials were used in formulating the definition of a provider of services of alternative means of payment. Relevant Explanatory Memorandum (in Estonian: Seletuskiri) and other documents which describe the discussions are all available in webpage of The Parliament of Estonia: http://www.riigikogu.ee/?page=eelnou&op=ems2&emshelp=true&eid=163492&u=20150202103529. All Explanatory Memorandums and other documents in relation to adopted legal acts in Estonia are publicly available at The Parliament of Estonia webpage and accessible at any time. Drafters of legal acts give always explanations about legal acts prior and after their adoption and additionally upon relevant requests, including in press (for example see: http://majandus24.postimees.ee/2704202/rahandusministeerium-bitcoinide-ost-muuk-ei-ole-eestis-keelatud). Question no 4: What process was followed in making this decision? All legal acts in Estonia are adopted following Rules for Good Legislative Practice and Legislative Drafting. Ministry of Finance is transparent in its work and involves all interested parties in discussions if possible and necessary. The issues regarding specifically Bitcoins in context of MLTFPA were discussed with other relevant institutions, including couple of times in Governmental Committee for the coordination of money laundering prevention meetings (relevant minutes cannot be made publicly available according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3)). Relevant issue was also discussed in Advisory Committee of Market Participants meeting on 16.04.2014 (extract of minutes is attached). Governmental Committee and Advisory Committee of Market Participants have not found any errors in interpretation of MLTFPA by Ministry of Finance on issue of Bitcoins (members of Governmental Committee and Advisory Committee of Market Participants are described here: http://www.fin.ee/money-laundering-and-terrorist-financing-prevention). Ministry of Finance has followed in its interpretations the aims of law, including explanations described in Explanatory Memorandum to MLTFPA and cannot leave them disregarded. Question no 5: Which Estonian institutions, agencies, or organizations were involved in the decision? Question no 6: Were institutions, agencies, or organizations from other countries involved in the decision? Question no 7: Was anyone else, not mentioned above, involved in making this decision or giving advice? Explanatory Memorandum to MLTFPA adopted in 19.12.2007 and other documents in relation to relevant discussions include the list of institutions who participated in drafting MLTFPA and information about discussions (these documents are available in webpage of The Parliament of Estonia: http://www.riigikogu.ee/?page=eelnou&op=ems2&emshelp=true&eid=163492&u=20150202103529 Please see also our answer to your question no 4. Please note also that Estonia is member of MONEYVAL (Select Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/) and therefore obliged to follow FATF international standards on combating money laundering and terrorism financing and pass relevant assessments by MONEYVAL. Question no 8: Please provide the relevant minutes of all relevant meetings where the legal status of Bitcoin was discussed. Question no 9: When and how did the Ministry of Finance first make public the classification of Bitcoin as an alternative payment method? Please see answers to questions number 3 and 4. Finally, please be aware that today many countries have identified that their existing laws cover virtual currencies (including Bitcoin) in one or other ways. Approaches are and can be very different. Some countries (including in EU) require obtaining relevant license in certain occasions and/or follow certain other rules. Some countries have adopted recently new measures regarding virtual currencies based mainly on their national needs and risks as required also by FATF standards (e.g. US). Discussions weather virtual currencies need special regulations on EU level (including regarding taxing issues) and weather and how FATF needs to specify its standards and/or issue additional guidance’s in order to harmonize the different practices in countries, are currently in progress. Estonia is participating in these discussions held in relevant working groups (e.g. Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing under European Commission and MONEYVAL) and monitoring the progress very closely. Ministry of Finance has started to analyze the possibilities and needs to amend or specify MLTFPA relevant provisions but will probably make final decisions on this issue after the relevant discussions on EU level and FATF have finished because according to principle of legislative economy it would be unreasonable to change the law repeatedly on same issue within a short time. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact us. The list of links to legal acts and documents referred in this response is attached with separate document. Kind regards, Veronika Mets Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Attachments: 16-04-2014_nõukoja-protokoll_väljavõte.docx, Links-to-legal-acts-and-documents.doc
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 01:36:23 +0100 Subject: teabenõue
Dear Ms. Veronika Mets, Thank you for your detailed reply. Unfortunately it does not actually answer all my questions. I'd like you to clarify the following points: Re Question 3: When was the decision to classify Bitcoin as an alternative payment method made? Please provide the exact date on which this decision was made. None of the resources you mention, explicitly mention Bitcoin, nor Virtual Currencies (the term used by the European and Estonian central bank), or even the term cryptocurrency. In fact the law itself and all explanatory notes predate the creation of Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies. It's therefor clear that law makers never made this law with Bitcoin in mind and therefor this is not when the decision about Bitcoin was made. In fact you even state in you reply that the Ministry of Finance is of the "opinion" that Bitcoins are covered by the MLTFPA: "Ministry of Finance is in opinion that § 6 (4) of MLTFPA covers also relevant activities in Bitcoins and therefore other relevant obligations in MLTFPA apply (e.g. § 15 (8), § 15 & etc of MLTFPA)." Question 3a: This is what I want to know: when did the Ministry of Finance come to the opinion that Bitcoins are covered by the MLPTFPA? Question 3b: And secondly how did this happen? Was there a meeting in which Bitcoin was analyzed and this question was discussed? Question 3c: When did this meeting take place? When did the Ministry of Finance's opinion become final? Re Question 4: What process was followed in making this decision? "Ministry of Finance is transparent in its work and involves all interested parties in discussions if possible and necessary. The issues regarding specifically Bitcoins in context of MLTFPA were discussed with other relevant institutions, including couple of times in Governmental Committee for the coordination of money laundering prevention meetings (relevant minutes cannot be made publicly available according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3))." Question 4a: Could you provide me with the dates of the meetings in which Bitcoin was discussed? Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3)) reads "information the disclosure of which would damage the foreign relations of the state;" Question 4b: I am intersted only in the discussions about the legal classification and/or treatment of Bitcoin, surely it can not damage the foreign relations of the state to make those sections public. Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:31:02 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr. Otto de Voogd As we have already explained in our previous letter Ministry of Finance is obliged to give explanations about legal acts prepared by Ministry of Finance of Estonia. We have already given you detailed answers about relevant provisions of MLTFPA, including explanations about the aim of the law and cannot agree or confirm the conclusions made by you in your last letter since they are not in our view in line with MLTFPA, aims and principals. In addition we would like to note that relevant provisions in MLTFPA do not restrict themselves in any way to relevant activities which existed only at the time of adoption of MLTFPA. At the same time EU regulations and FATF standards do not oblige countries to refer in their regulations explicitly to bitcoin or to use the term “virtual currencies” etc. As already explained countries are allowed to use different approaches, including terminology and if necessary even prohibit the use of bitcoin/virtual currencies, which is not case in Estonia but is already case in some other countries. MLTFPA was adopted on 19.12.2007 and relevant obligations were introduced with adoption of MLTFPA. Governmental Committee for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing discussed various issues regarding virtual currencies in more detail recently on 5th January 2015 meeting. The minutes of this meeting cannot be made public according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3) because they include information about other countries views on certain issues in relation to virtual currencies which have not yet been made public by those countries (e.g. relevant discussions are in process/are not final) and for these reasons disclosure of such information might damage the foreign relations of the state (as far as we know most countries have similar or even more strict rules and principals for disclosure of certain information to the public). At the same time we would like to note again that Committee and Advisory Committee of Market Participants have not found any errors in interpretation of MLTFPA by Ministry of Finance on issue of virtual currencies (e.g. bitcoins). We hope that our additional explanations will help you understand better the provisions and aims of MLTFPA with respect to virtual currencies/bitcoins. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me for additional explanations. Kind regards, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:06:25 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs. Veronika Mets, You wrote: "Governmental Committee for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing discussed various issues regarding virtual currencies in more detail recently on 5th January 2015 meeting." Was this the only meeting during which Bitcoin was discussed? Or were there others? When was the first meeting in which Bitcoin was discussed? You wrote: "The minutes of this meeting cannot be made public according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 3) because they include information about other countries views on certain issues in relation to virtual currencies which have not yet been made public by those countries (e.g. relevant discussions are in process/are not final) and for these reasons disclosure of such information might damage the foreign relations of the state (as far as we know most countries have similar or even more strict rules and principals for disclosure of certain information to the public). You told me in your first e-mail that the "Ministry of Finance is transparent in its work", so why don't you just redact the secret information out of the minutes, and send me only the minutes related the Estonian legal situation of Bitcoin? I am sure there is no need for you to hide from me the parts that are not secret. Best Regards, Otto de Voogd
She's thanking me for my 3rd letter, she must be enjoying them...
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:17:55 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr. Voogt Thank you for your 3rd letter! First of all would like to clarify you that the minutes of Governmental Committee for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing (Committee) and Advisory Committee of Market Participants meeting do not include discussions word by word. Minutes reflect briefly the discussions and decisions (if decisions are made) and should not be confused with detailed reports of discussion (in Estonian: stenogram). The minutes must be approved by relevant committee participants at the next committee meeting to be considered as final version. For these reasons we cannot make any extracts as you request in your last letter of 05.01.15 Committee minutes because they have not been yet approved (next meeting will take place in end of March -t.o.b). The issues with Bitcoins were mentioned also at Committee meeting on 17.03.14 where Financial Institution Unit (FIU) made presentation about new phenomenas which pose risk to money laundering and terrorism financing. The 17.03.14 minutes do not reflect detailed discussion, conclusions or decisions about explicitly the Bitcoins. We would like to stress that we have already provided you with information that the Committee and Advisory Committee of Market Participants relevant minutes do not include any new information/interpretations with respect to explanations what we have already provided you about MLTFPA. We have also answered all of your questions as required by the law. I addition I would like to draw your attention again to the fact that in Estonia the laws are adopted by Parliament and prior to adoption the drafts of laws are negotiated with all relevant institutions and also in relevant Parliamentary working groups. Any legal disputes or claims (if you have any) are resolved by courts! Sincerely, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:23:51 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Veronika Mets, You wrote: "The issues with Bitcoins were mentioned also at Committee meeting on 17.03.14 where Financial Institution Unit (FIU) made presentation about new phenomenas which pose risk to money laundering and terrorism financing." As I asked before, was this the first meeting during which Bitcoins were discussed? Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:49:20 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr. de Voogd We have already provided you with all relevant information and explanations on issues concerning virtual currencies (e.g Bitcoins) with respect to MLTFPA. Please refer to our previous answers. Kind regards, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:30:31 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs Mets, I am sorry I do not see any mention in any of your previous answers stating explicitly that this was the first meeting or not. It's a simple question, that can be answered with yes or no. May I remind you that you yourself stated that the Ministry of Finance is transparent in its work, and that President Ilves regularly claims that Estonia is very transparent. Please show me how transparent Estonia really is. Regards, Otto
She's losing it.
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:38:53 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr de Voogd We have already provided you with all relevant information and explanations on issues concerning virtual currencies (e.g Bitcoins) with respect to MLTFPA, including the aim of lawmaker, relevant dates, links etc. Please refer to our previous answers. Kind regards, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:00:32 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs Veronika Mets, Please do not confuse sending a reply with answering my questions. Your replies did not answer all my questions. I hereby also request the minutes of the Committee meeting of 17.03.14, I preseume those have been approved already and do not contain secret information. Kind Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:33:43 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr Otto de Voogd We have already answered your questions by providing you with all relevant information and explanations on issues concerning virtual currencies (e.g Bitcoins) with respect to MLTFPA, including the aim of lawmaker, relevant dates, links etc. Please refer to our previous answers. The minutes of Committee meeting of 17.03.14 cannot be made public because they contain information which cannot be disclosed according to Public Information Act § 35 (1) 5-1) and 35 (1) 3) and as already explained they do not contain any parts on this issue which can be made public separately (as extract). "Transparency" does not mean in any way that there is right or obligation to break the laws! Kind regards, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:03:58 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs Veronika Mets, You did not provide me with the information I sought, in fact I did not ask for an explanation of the law, nor the aim of lawmakers. That's information I was already aware of. I specifically want to know how the Ministry's interpretation, which you correctly described as an opinion, was formed. Note that I ask HOW it was formed not WHY it was formed like it was, nor do I ask for a justification of that opinion. When the law was passed there were no Bitcoins or Virtual Currencies. At some point Bitcoins appeared. And at some later point the Ministry would have made an analysis and determined which laws applied to Bitcoin. Or at least I would expect a professional organization to proceed like that. So I'll rephrase my questions: 1. Did the Ministry perform an analysis of Bitcoin (or Virtual Currencies or Cryptocurrencies)? 2. When did this analysis happen? 3. When was anything about this analysis first made public? If you tire of this e-mail discussion, then please just answer my questions. I am sorry to say that transparency in proceedings does mean that this sort of information be available to public. If you do not make this information public then it means that you work in secret, which I think would be unbecoming of a country like Estonia, and certainly go against everything your president likes to claim about Estonia's supposed transparency. Kind Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Veronika Mets To: Otto de Voogd CC: Kurmet Ojamaa, Keit Pillak Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:32:32 +0200 Subject: RE: teabenõue
Dear Mr de Voogd According to Response to Memoranda and Requests for Explanations and Submission of Collective Addresses Act (§ 2 (2) and § 3) we are able to respond to your letter only in part which falls within the scope of the request for legal explanation of legal acts prepared by Ministry of Finance of Estonia. Providing legal explanations means explaining the content, meaning and/or aim of specific law and/or its concrete section, paragraph or article and is not same as giving legal aid which means giving legal assessment of specific vital part/set of facts. For legal aid please contact lawyers (e.g. Estonian Bar Association: https://www.advokatuur.ee/eng/frontpage). As for information (documents) you are requesting we are able to provide you information which is not classified as information for internal use according to Public Information Act § 35. We have already provided you explanations with respect to virtual currencies and MLTFPA, including explained how (the procedures & dates & participants) and why (the aim & reasons) relevant provisions of MLTFPA were drafted. In addition we have also explained in details discussions with respect to Bitcoins. Ministry of Finance has published its explanations on issues explicitly to Bitcoins in relevant press releases (please refer to my previous mails). In addition the Committee adopted on 05 January 2015 Estonian National Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Risk Assessment (made according to World Bank Methodology during 2013-2015 and has more than 550 pages). This national risk assessment (NRA) analyzed also the money laundering and terrorism financing risks with respect to virtual currencies. NRA is internal document according to Public Information Act § 35 (it contains operational information). The summary of NRA for publication is currently being drafted and we plan to publish it during this half year (t.o.b). Finally, since we have already provided you detailed explanations about MLTFPA with respect to virtual currencies (including Bitcoins) in full amount and since your questions are all addressed specifically to issues with Bitcoins and are probably related to certain disputes, then we are not able to answer any of your additional questions on this topic because we have nothing to add on this issue anymore (we have provided you all information we can provide) and we do not have obligation to provide you legal aid. Kind regards, Veronika Mets Lawyer Entrepreneurship and Accounting Policy Department Phone: +372 [snip] [snip]@fin.ee
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 01:46:27 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs Veronika Mets, First let me make clear that information is either public or it is not. The reason I ask for specific information or the fact that you dislike me asking questions are entirely irrelevant. If information can be made public I have a RIGHT to know it. I asked for instance if the Committee meeting of 17.03.14 was the first meeting where Bitcoins were discussed. You may want to pretend this a legal aid question, but it is not, no lawyer would be able to answer this question. Secondly repeating each time that you answered all my questions, does not make that true. We both know that you did not answer that question. You could have answered with a simple yes or no instead of going through this whole charade. So I am going to ask you again, was the Governmental Committee meeting of 17.03.14 the first Committee meeting during which Bitcoins were discussed? You can answer with a simple Yes or No, or you can tell me explicitly that you refuse to answer this question. But what you can not do is tell me that you answered this question when you haven't or pretend it's a legal aid issue which it is not. It's quite unbelievable that we need to exchange so many emails, about a question that would have taken you just a few seconds to answer honestly. It certainly does not give me the impression of transparency. Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Otto de Voogd To: Veronika Mets Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:40:10 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mrs Mets, Just a reminder that I am still expecting an answer from you to the question below. Either, "yes" or "no", or a clear statement from you that you refuse to answer said question. Recap of the question: > So I am going to ask you again, was the Governmental Committee meeting > of 17.03.14 the first Committee meeting during which Bitcoins were > discussed? Kind Regards, Otto de Voogd
Apparently I drove Mrs Veronika Mets nuts and now I get her stand in.
From: Taivo Põrk To: Otto de Voogd CC: Veronika Mets Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:04:07 +0200 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mr de Voogd, One-word answer to your question is "No". Best regards, Taivo Põrk Lawyer Department of entrepreneurship and accounting policy
From: Otto de Voogd To: Taivo Põrk Cc: Veronika Mets Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:14:14 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mr Põrk, Thank you for your answer. In my e-mail to Mrs Veronika Mets dated Feb 10th, I asked among other things: "When was the first meeting in which Bitcoin was discussed?" To which she answered on Feb 11th: "The issues with Bitcoins were mentioned also at Committee meeting on 17.03.14 where Financial Institution Unit (FIU) made presentation about new phenomenas which pose risk to money laundering and terrorism financing." Note the word "also", thus I sought to have it confirmed that this was indeed the *first* meeting as I had asked in my original question. Your answer indicates that she did not answer my original question truthfully. Contrary the requirements in § 9. (8) of the Estonian Public Information Act. So please finally provide me with the date of the FIRST Committee meeting during which Bitcoins were discussed, as I had asked Mrs Mets. Kind Regards, Otto de Voogd
From: Taivo Põrk To: Otto de Voogd CC: Veronika Mets Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:16:52 +0200 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mr de Voogt The 17.03.14 meeting was the first one in which Bitcoins were discussed as one of the focii in a particular written presentation, also mentioned in official minutes, which is why Mrs Mets pointed out this particular date to you. However, as BTC gained greater prominence in 2012-2013 they became subject of sporadic discussion in both the MoF and the Committee, with a view to whether features of BTC might eventually merit a separate regulation (as you are aware, this idea has so far not gained ground). Since word-by-word minutes of the Committee meetings are not produced, we are unable to pinpoint the date when BTC were mentioned in discussion for the very first time. However, until relevant law is amended so as to provide special regulation to BTC (mind that this is IF, not WHEN), they automatically fall under the umbrella provision of "alternative means of payment" - unless, of course, a court would rule otherwise. Therefore, the moment of their first mention in the Committee (or elsewhere) appears rather inconsequential to us. Best regards, Taivo Põrk
From: Otto de Voogd To: Taivo Põrk Cc: Veronika Mets Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:28:47 +0100 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mr Põrk, Thank you very much for your answer. So to recap, the 17.03.2014 Committee meeting was the first committee meeting for which the written minutes (or summary) mention Bitcoin. Is that correct? Besides the commitee meetings, were there any other meetings, for instance internal meetings at the MoF, of which the minutes or summary mention Bitcoin? Could you also provide me with a list of titles and dates of documents in your official document registry that mention Bitcoin in any way or form. Kind Regards, Otto de Voogd
Suprisingly the stand in actually gave me the information I wanted. Hallelujah!
From: Taivo Põrk To: Otto de Voogd CC: Veronika Mets Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:06:22 +0200 Subject: Re: teabenõue
Dear Mr de Voogt, 1) Yes. 2) No. However, minutes of internal meetings are not normally taken. 3) Searching document registry for "Bitcoin", gives following results: In addition to the correspondence we've had with you, there have been three separate requests for information regarding Bitcoin, all asked and answered between January and May 2014. Also, one of our employees attended the 21.05.14 conference on Bitcoin at Tallinn University and has filed statement of expenditure. Best regards, Taivo Põrk
So the 17.03.2014 meeting was the first meeting with a written summary that mentions Bitcoin. This was after the Estonian FIU initiated hostilities towards me (which was nearly a month earlier on 13.02.2014).
We can also note that while the Ministry of Finance has this document the FIU claims it has no documents at all, not even the summary of this meeting which they attended themselves and for which the MoF does have a summary.
Given the very short list of available documents, we can conclude that there is none with decent analysis by experts, or with conclusions drawn to decide or confirm the classification of Bitcoin. Apparently that's too much to expect from the "professionals" at the Ministry of Finance.
I suspect that what really happened is that the FIU, led by Aivar Paul, after they initiated their attack against me, went to the Ministry of Finance to convince them of their stance. And people like Veronika Mets reflexively chose to side with their buddies at the FIU so as to justify the FIU's actions after the fact. State agents stick together after all and cover each other's asses.