Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct the amount seized.
In a sweeping operation across Germany, financial regulators and law enforcement agencies have confiscated nearly €250,000 (about $279,000) in cash and shut down 13 cryptocurrency ATMs operating without proper authorization.
The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) announced the results of this coordinated effort on Tuesday, in a statement that highlighted concerns over money laundering risks associated with unregulated cryptocurrency exchanges.
The operation, which involved collaboration between BaFin, local law enforcement, and the German Bundesbank, targeted 35 locations throughout the country. The seized ATMs were primarily used for trading Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, operating outside the regulatory framework designed to prevent financial crimes.
The crackdown reflects the growing tensions between cryptocurrency advocates and regulatory bodies. While cryptocurrencies offer potential benefits such as financial inclusion and technological innovation, they also present challenges for regulators attempting to maintain oversight and prevent illicit activities.
Crypto ATMs and the law
The action in Germany forms part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny on cryptocurrency operations worldwide. Some Bitcoin ATM operators are ideologically opposed to compliance with the regulation of Bitcoin, arguing that it was introduced as an individualistic anti-control technology.
An anonymous Bitcoin ATM operator who previously chose to deactivate their machine rather than comply with know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations told Decrypt that the response to increased regulation should be to "create new technologies and enhance existing ones so that the peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin/crypto is as simple and untraceable as possible, making control attempts difficult and ineffective."
The operator further suggested that state control is only feasible when entry points, such as commercial activities, are limited and identifiable. However, they posited that the widespread adoption of peer-to-peer transactions among users could render such control ineffective.
"If you work on a technology that takes power away from the state, the latter will put obstacles in your way,” they argued. “If it didn't, it would mean we're doing something wrong."