So the SDNY is still going forward with 1 of the original 2 charges of unlicensed money transmission in Roman's case. Let me help you understand how bizarre that is legally. A rant. The Federal criminal law defines unlicensed money transmission at 18 USC 1960(b)(1). That sub-part has three alternative prongs, (A)(B)(C). (A) says you are unlicensed because you fit a state law definition of money transmission and then transmitted in a state where you didn't have a license. SDNY never charged Roman with that. (B) says you are unlicensed because you fit the definition of MSB at section 5330 in the BSA and therefore needed to register with FinCEN but didn't. SDNY charged that but that charge has now been abandoned (rightfully because FinCEN clearly said non-custodial entities are not MSBs per 5330 and don't need to register). (C), the remaining charge [1960(b)(1)(C)] says you are unlicensed because you knowingly transported criminal funds. So the question is, if you are only "unlicensed" under (C) and not under (A) state law, or (B) federal BSA law, then who were you supposed to register or license with? FinCEN? no, that's who you register with to avoid (b)(1)(B). State money transmission regulators? no, the government never charged (b)(1)(A) which is failure to license in a state where a license is required. So if I can be "unlicensed" because of conduct described in (b)(1)(C) but no state or federal agency licenses that conduct then how in god's green earth am I unlicensed? Who does the SDNY think Roman was supposed to license with? They've admitted that it wouldn't be FinCEN by dropping the (b)(1)(B) charge. They never argued it was the states with a (b)(1)(A) charge? So who is it? If someone ends up going to jail because they failed to register when doing something that nobody required registration to do, then I'm going to lose my mind.