"The ruling is unfortunate and sets a dangerous precedent," attorney Joe Carlasare tells The Rage. "However, I understand why the Court came down in determining that Section 1960 doesn’t impose a requirement of control over assets to operate as an unlicensed money transmitter."

"Congress wanted a very broad definition of “money transmitting’ to include “but not be limited to” transferring funds on behalf of the public by ANY and ALL means including but not limited to transfers within this country or to locations abroad by wire, check, draft, facsimile, or courier."