United States v. Murgio

Anthony Murgio (defendant) operated a Bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin was a virtual currency that could be used to pay for goods and services and could be purchased directly from an exchange. The United States indicted Murgio for operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. Murgio moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 1960 applied only to the transfer of funds and that only traditional currency, not virtual currencies, were funds under § 1960. To support his position, Murgio cited Black’s Law Dictionary (Black’s), which (1) purportedly defined “funds” to mean “a sum of money or other liquid assets established for a specific purpose” and (2) defined “money” as “the medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency.” However, the definition Murgio cited for “funds” was actually the definition of “fund” (the singular term). Murgio also contended that (1) interpreting “funds” to include virtual currencies would make § 1960 overbroad because commodities would then be funds, (2) the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defined funds to exclude virtual currencies, and (3) the rule of lenity and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance required excluding virtual currencies from § 1960’s ambit.