3 ms·
Sure. What I'm saying is that the bank should also face consequential damages when they suspend an account for an extended period of time without a criminal sta
by rlpb 10y ago
Sure. What I'm saying is that the bank should also face consequential damages when they suspend an account for an extended period of time without a criminal standard of proof. This will help redress the balance. Instead of them "not taking any chances", they will be forced to consider the situation and make a real determination.
- zigzigzag 10y agoAnti-money laundering laws explicitly do not require a criminal standard of proof. This is by design - governments and in particular the US government which insists on all this stuff regardless of what other countries thing absolutely love a system that fights crime, as they see it, without all the hassle of due process and court cases. AML account closures only require 'suspicion', for example, a name match against a blacklist compiled by a government agency is 'suspicious' even if it wouldn't hold up in a traditional court of law.
- rlpb 10y agoAnd what I'm saying is that government-sanctioned removal of services upon citizens who have broken no law should not be tolerated in a society that values the rule of law.
- zigzigzag 10y agoI absolutely agree. Unfortunately convincing governments to roll back anti-money laundering laws would be like pulling teeth. They only ever make them more aggressive.