美元稳定币在我国外贸结算中的应用场景与反洗钱监管挑战｜国际

Core Viewpoint - The article analyzes the application models and operational mechanisms of US dollar stablecoins in four main scenarios related to cross-border trade, while also addressing the anti-money laundering regulatory challenges posed by stablecoins and providing policy recommendations to enhance China's autonomy in the international payment system [1]. Group 1: Application Scenarios of US Dollar Stablecoins - The first scenario involves overseas importers using US dollar stablecoins for payments, where they convert stablecoins to RMB through local exchange merchants before paying Chinese exporters, maintaining a process similar to traditional methods [3]. - The second scenario focuses on Chinese exporters receiving payments in US dollar stablecoins, particularly in industries facing foreign technology blockades, where stablecoins serve as a crucial tool to bypass payment barriers, facilitated by stablecoin payment institutions [4]. - The third scenario highlights the enhancement of transaction efficiency and security through stablecoins, particularly in high-demand sectors like gold trading, where smart contracts enable real-time payment and delivery synchronization, mitigating credit risks [5]. - The fourth scenario pertains to B2B bulk commodity trade, where stablecoins are still in the exploratory phase, but they can improve trade efficiency and facilitate the integration of information, funds, and logistics through blockchain technology [6]. Group 2: Anti-Money Laundering Regulatory Challenges - Stablecoins present potential channels for money laundering due to their decentralized, anonymous nature, posing challenges to existing anti-money laundering regulatory frameworks [8]. - The laundering process involving stablecoins typically follows three steps: placement, layering, and integration, where illicit funds are converted into virtual assets, obscured, and then consolidated for conversion back into fiat or goods [9]. - The anonymity and global nature of virtual assets complicate anti-money laundering efforts, as regulatory authorities struggle to identify the actual identities of asset holders and face challenges in cross-border enforcement due to varying regulatory standards [10].