> I work in the banking industry. It's not very unusual to discover that a client might be doing something that is suspicious enough to notify law enforcement o

> I work in the banking industry. It's not very unusual to discover that a client might be doing something that is suspicious enough to notify law enforcement of it (these notices are mandatory). You work in the banking industry. This is not the banking industry. Money laundering laws as they are written make bankers (and other financial service industry workers) criminally liable for criminal acts even if there was no criminal intent on the part of the bankers. That is not the case in retail, and I shudder even at the thought. > You're supposed to attempt to prevent these situations from happening in the first place You're not "supposed" to -- you are legally required to play police officer, and can be criminally liable if your organization allows this activity if there is any sort of way to detect it, even if that detection is not part of the legal mandate. Filing too many SARs can get you in as much trouble as actively money laundering. These AML laws are horrific, and create a ton of bureaucratic burden on companies and force them to deliberately cut off customers who are using their facilities for totally legitimate reasons because they match a pattern also used by criminals. This, of course, it part of the reason for these laws; to starve sectors (for example, legal marijuana dispensaries) that can't be explicitly made illegal and have to be made "uncomfortable" instead. Amazon shouldn't play cop; they should let law enforcement prosecute real cases of fraud, rather than trying to preemptively prevent fraud and in the process add burdensome requirements that restrict access to their marketplace and allow well-capitalized rent-seeking incumbents to further consolidate their market power over small shops that rely on equal access to the marketplace.