First, looking at charges for unlicensed money transmission under Section 1960 as well as violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, "unwitting violations of regulations" appears to moot the statements on regulation violations made.

Merriam Webster defines the term "unwitting" as unknowing, unintentional, or not done on purpose. But both Section 1960 and the Bank Secrecy Act require the prosecution to prove mens rea – meaning a guilty mind – to bring charges against entities or individuals. Under existing law, the DOJ has never been able to charge "unwitting" regulation violations in the first place.

Second, similar to statements made last week by the Treasury, the Deputy Attorney General asks the DOJ to prioritize "cases involving use of digital assets in furtherance of unlawful conduct by cartels, Transnational Criminal Organizations, Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and Specially Designated Global Terrorists," stating that such groups were increasingly turning toward digital assets (and again claiming that Hamas used cryptocurrency to fund its operations, which has long been debunked).

Specifically, the Deputy Attorney General asks the DOJ to "hold accountable individuals who [...] use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct, such as fentanyl trafficking, terrorism, cartels, organized crime, and human trafficking and smuggling."

The open question appears to be: whom does the DOJ consider to be an individual who uses "digital assets in furtherance of criminal conduct?"

Third, the memo carves out an exception for Section 1960 subsection (B)(1)(c), stating that the subsection is "outside the scope of this policy."

Subsection C deems 1960 to apply to offenses which "otherwise involve the transportation or transmission of funds that are known to the defendant to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity."