5 ms·

If you truly don't understand why there are anti money laundering laws I suggest you go commit some crimes for large financial gain and then figure out what the

If you truly don't understand why there are anti money laundering laws I suggest you go commit some crimes for large financial gain and then figure out what the hell to do with the money such that you can use it.

entity345 8y ago
That's the not the point of the thread you're replying to. Someone claimed that it was the bank's fault because they did nothing to prevent money laundering. Why would they if they are not forced to? When you run a business you do not turn customers away, especially they they want to give you plenty of cash... It's naive or hypocritical to claim otherwise.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Ok.
- ToFundorNot 8y ago
  I feel like you're missing the circular logic of your argument. The laws are crazy because banks will not self regulate. They openly allow illicit funds, so rules need to be applied to stem the source. None is blaming them for accepting funds from anyone that they come across, but there should be no confusion as to why the rules exist: because the banks will indiscriminately allow the transfer of funds from illegitimate sources. With that in mind, the rules are crazy, because the banks don't care.
  - entity345 8y ago
    Nothing circular in my argument. I feel you're wilfully ignoring what I wrote.
    - unparagoned 8y ago
      Nope. Please explain what point you are trying to make. None gets it
Canada 8y ago
There's clearly two schools of thought debating here. One is that there should be a presumption of innocence, and the other is that there should be random warrantless checkpoints everywhere to catch the bad guys.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  It's not even a debate at this point. Been settled for a while now.
  - Canada 8y ago
    You are right. The random checkpoint and interrogation proponents have been in charge for some time now. And it looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it hopefully gets better.

entity345 8y ago

That's the not the point of the thread you're replying to. Someone claimed that it was the bank's fault because they did nothing to prevent money laundering. Why would they if they are not forced to? When you run a business you do not turn customers away, especially they they want to give you plenty of cash... It's naive or hypocritical to claim otherwise.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
Ok.
ToFundorNot 8y ago
I feel like you're missing the circular logic of your argument. The laws are crazy because banks will not self regulate. They openly allow illicit funds, so rules need to be applied to stem the source. None is blaming them for accepting funds from anyone that they come across, but there should be no confusion as to why the rules exist: because the banks will indiscriminately allow the transfer of funds from illegitimate sources. With that in mind, the rules are crazy, because the banks don't care.
- entity345 8y ago
  Nothing circular in my argument. I feel you're wilfully ignoring what I wrote.
  - unparagoned 8y ago
    Nope. Please explain what point you are trying to make. None gets it

Canada 8y ago

There's clearly two schools of thought debating here. One is that there should be a presumption of innocence, and the other is that there should be random warrantless checkpoints everywhere to catch the bad guys.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
It's not even a debate at this point. Been settled for a while now.
- Canada 8y ago
  You are right. The random checkpoint and interrogation proponents have been in charge for some time now. And it looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it hopefully gets better.