> literally, they cost more to implement than the money that is recoup'd from "illegal" activities I'd presume there is a deterrent as well as a direct effect

> literally, they cost more to implement than the money that is recoup'd from "illegal" activities I'd presume there is a deterrent as well as a direct effect on reducing money laundering; I'd expect to see more money laundering if there were no checks. Quite how it would be measured is another question.