Query regarding international transaction between governments
$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD.  Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs.  So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would).  No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services. Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident.  I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD.  $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account.  The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government.     Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was.  Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought.  I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though. For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.
Ok, its been over a week, I think I am done with this. If you feel answering last makes you a winner, GJ. You are, though, incorrect in showing any example of a country that simultaneously purchased and sold its own debt. Also, I rule. Usually, your situation is a generalized form of import/export, with you as the net exporter of goods/services and the individual consuming your goods/service as net importer. Import export laws vary from country to country but following are the general tariffs/taxes applicable: Export tax/duty: From your sovereign jurisdiction (read country/region/EU region), there could be export restriction or tariffs applicable to your exported goods/services on the other hand there may not be any, check with EU export law on this and then your country specific law. If there is any tax/tariff payable, you shall have to pay the same on the transactions. Import tax/duty: This is more related to your customer who is purchasing the goods/services from you, however, you should know this. Your customer will be liable to pay any import tax/duty as applicable for importing of your goods/services in that country/region, if it is applicable. Shipping Insurance: If it is a physical goods, there would be shipping and with shipping comes insurance and indemnity (if applicable). So there is a cost to it, you need to be aware of this. Sales Tax: There is no Govt. on earth or history which does not or did not charge sales tax in some form or the other. EU/country will also have sales tax, you should be aware of this as per transaction you may have to pay sales tax to the Govt. This would add to the cost. Credit of Foreign Currency Payments: Some countries have tax/tariffs attached to foreign currency credits/transfers or bank charges attached to the same, you may have to open specific type of bank A/C to receive the credits. These laws are specific to country/region, you should be aware of the same. The above are generic considerations and not specific to EU and to a greater/lesser extent applicable to all countries/regions. Best would be to search the net on the above points for EU region and get answers or approach a chartered accountant who will give you all the information. Yes it is possible. It would depend on Banks policies whether they would lend. Quite a few large corporations borrow money in one country for business needs in other country "No it is not ""Normal"" the normal process is that the money is transferred to your account with out issue.  This would be an exception.  That does not mean that there is anything to worry about.  It could be that the transaction met some criteria that triggered closer examination, or it could be that yours is just one randomly being reviewed.  And it could just be that your husbands partner misunderstood or lied.   Step 1 would be contact the bank and find out what is going on and if there is any action you need to take.  Assuming that the bank confirms the status and the amount is significant enough I would probably give my lawyer a heads up of what is going on.  If Homeland Security is involved there is a reasonable chance that you will need that representation anyway so getting the lawyer involved early might save you a headache in the end.  The lawyer is probably the only person that will be able to get any answers for your anyway. from comments: My husband is a consultant that works for another company - as a   consultant. That company received a contract from a government south   of the US (Free Trade approved). That government first wired the   overall government contract to the company account in that originating   country, then... the funds were wired to the US counterpart company   ... then then consultants gets paid. It sounds like the contract is not your normal business to business international contract.  So normal goes out the window there.  When you start getting foreign governments involved things get... lets use the word ""interesting.""  If the contract involves anything with military or restricted technology applications (even if they are not directly military) then HSA wants to make sure that no one is circumventing export restrictions.  With out knowing more specifics it is difficult to guess whether or not there is anything for your husband to worry about.  The bottom line for him is that he does not have his money so he should keep that in mind when delivering services to the Prime Contractor." The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer.  In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer.  Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade.  If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete. If both bank accounts are in your name, it appears that NS&I have a free International Payments Service.  The Post office international payments are apparently free if you transfer at least £250. In both cases, I have not used the services and I'm not sure if there is some catch that I have missed.  Perhaps they only appear free due to an unfavourable exchange rate — I don't know. See also: UK fee-free foreign transfer to own account "You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem.  ""In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining."" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars.  Thus, the amount of money is not relevant-  it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price.  Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because ""that's how it's always been."" Nobody ""creates/supervises"" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values." "This sounds like a FATCA issue.  I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US.  The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens.  The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened.  Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors.  This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step.  Such a step would require thought and planning.  Note that there would be an expatriation tax (""exit tax"") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access.  A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons.  But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible.  Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA." "One option would be to physically ship the money from Israel to the US. I quickly ran the numbers for shipping different amounts of $100 bills (One pound equals 454 bills) using a popular shipping company. Here are the results:  The ""sweet"" spot is $100,000.  That would only cost you $76 to ship which is just 0.08% of the amount being transferred. Of course, the shipping company's website says international shipments of money are prohibited.  Their website, however, let me categorize the shipment as ""money"".  Strange." Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies. "An US person could be liable for corruption charges in the US for paying a bribe in a foreign country, because of [FCPA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act).  Quoting: ""The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person [...] to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.""" It is non-binding.  I'm not positive of China receiving money but I know they wouldn't have to give money.  They also don't need to cut their carbon emissions in the near future where the U.S. who competes with China economically would have to cut their emissions by over 20%. Politics matter when these types of things are being initially negotiated. Otherwise an early proposal that is intended to be just a bargaining position will be reported as OBAMA IS TAKING OUR FREEDOMS, and they will be forced to remove the bargaining position by politics instead of good policy. This will be voted on by the Senate, and will have to be ratified by 67 Senators. Trust me, this treaty will have its day in front of the people. Swaps form backstop to a shit load of int'l trade. Liquidity of currency is a huge factor in being a govt reserve currency, which USD currently has the VAST majority of holdings. This agreement is a shove against USE dominance in trade settlements, which is negative. Also challenges us general capital markets dominance a bit "I've bought ISO stock over they years -- in NYSE traded companies.  Every time I've done so, they've done what's called ""sell-to-cover"".  And the gubmint treats the difference between FMV and purchase price as if it's part of your salary.  And for me, they've sold some stock extra to pay estimated taxes. So, if I got this right...  20,000 shares at $3 costs you 60,000 to buy them.  In my sell-to-cover at 5 scenario: did I get that right?  Keeping only 4,000 shares out of 20,000 doesn't feel right.  Maybe because I've always sold at a much ratio between strike price and FMV. Note I made some assumptions:  first is that the company will sell some of the stock to pay the taxes for you.  Second is your marginal tax rate.  Before you do anything check these. Is there some reason to exercise immediately?  I'd wait, personally."