17 ms·

This comment is hilarious - you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? Its just a blip in a history book. Pretty sure any regul

This comment is hilarious - you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? Its just a blip in a history book. Pretty sure any regulation which was put in place in America after 911 has nothing to do with any of the countries which are involved in this story.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Are you saying "it can't happen here"? If that's the case, then I believe you're mistaken. This incident would be a good catalyst for any (90% or 10%) country to ensure their ports are more secure. (I'm aware of the breathlessness of the comment, and I was going to edit it tone it down a bit, but people had already started replying - I'll stand by it as-is.)
ckastner 6y ago
> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? In the financial world, there definitely is. Because of how 9/11 was bankrolled, AML laws were severely tightened. Quoting the subject line of the relevant EU directive [1]: "[...] prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing" Which is the point that the grandparent was getting to. Edit: To be more specific, in today's financial world, technically, shell companies should be pointless because any bank transacting with such a company is required to know the beneficial owner, ie the natural person ultimately behind that company (no matter how many layers). [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0849&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  If you have eight figure net worth or access to same from external sources it's not particularly difficult to start your own offshore bank. It's also pretty easy to buy a passport and create a fake identity. And not that much harder to create nominee directors who will never be vetted. And/or to create "legitimate" businesses with interests in art, property, and other high-value items - including in-game currencies - which can be used to transfer assets in creative ways. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/money-laundering-hmrc-tax-update https://www.wired.co.uk/article/money-laundering-hmrc-tax-up... And if you've been following the history of Wirecard you'll understand how easy it is to create a legitimate cover story for what appear to have been some rather less legitimate background operations. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/07/18/worlds-most-wanted-man-jan-marsalek-located-in-belarus-data-points-to-russian-intel-links/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/07/18/wor... And even if you go with a traditional bank, KYC is mostly box ticking. And some of the biggest banks have been directly implicated in money laundering, AML laws and all. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...
  - ckastner 6y ago
    > If you have eight figure net worth or access to same from external sources it's not particularly difficult to start your own offshore bank. An eight figure net worth is not even close when it comes to considering starting an own bank. Furthermore, offshore today means just one thing: "red flag". Because of AML rules, the list of Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories [1], and FATCA/CRS reporting, the only people still going through the hassle of using offshore to hide something are people who really want to hide something -- hence the red flag. Finally, banks don't exist by themselves. They need other banks to partner and transaction with. For example: say you are a bank in the British Virgin Islands. Now try to buy stock on the NYSE. For that, you need a bank with access, and no bank with access would partner with some shady outfit. > And if you've been following the history of Wirecard Wirecard is a scandal beyond comparison. It is unfathomable to me how this could have gone on so long. To contrast that, working for a bank myself, I was involved in numerous audits by financial regulators, and you wouldn't believe the level of detail they went into. Any flaw or inconsistency -- no matter how trivial, at what org level, or even across levels or topics -- was brought up. But perhaps that was just coincidence, and we had the luck of being audited by most the diligent of auditors. > And even if you go with a traditional bank, KYC is mostly box ticking. Absolutely not true, at least not with the banks I'm familiar with (and our peer group services mainly high-net-worth clients). Every single client can be subject of an AML audit. Any irregularity in a record will be construed as an overall failure of AML policies in the institution. You don't just "tick the boxes" with high-risk clients. Background checks happen. Plausibility checks happen. > And some of the biggest banks have been directly implicated in money laundering, AML laws and all. Laws cannot prevent crime, they can only deter crime. Yes, big banks are occasionally still involved in money laundering, but compare this to 20 years ago. The incentives are diminishing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATF_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATF_blacklist
    - eigen 6y ago
      > An eight figure net worth is not even close when it comes to considering starting an own bank. there are many credit unions with < $1 million in assets. https://www.bestcashcow.com/credit-unions/page-499 https://www.bestcashcow.com/credit-unions/page-499
- neiman 6y ago
  Wasn't the EU directive was put in place after terror attacks in Europe in the previous decade? What does 9/11 got to do with it?
  - ckastner 6y ago
    The first iteration of the aforementioned EU directive was published in 2005 [1]. Before that, individual countries had tightened their individual rules. The Wikipedia page on money laundering [2] details the consequences of 9/11 on regulation quite well. The keyword there is the "Financial Action Task Force", whose recommendations the EU directive aimed to implement. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32005L0060 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#History
    - neiman 6y ago
      Thank you, I take what I wrote back.
lmilcin 6y ago
Yeah... that's very good point. From my point of view as Polish citizen 911 is a problem that US developed for itself through their actions in the Middle East. I don't want to sound insensitive, 3 thousand people is of course a tragedy, but on a scale of entire Earth I think it is preposterous for US citizens to get obsessed after this one when more kids are dying to malaria every single day or for multitude of other problems. Looking from my point of view, it is that US rallies for some causes where it seems to suit US interests. There are so many countries that need help but in recent years whether a country gets US presence seems largely dependent on whether there is oil there and US is all too happy to turn their face away if the government of the oil-rich country is collaborating with US. This is a sore to many eyes and I just can't help to remember it whenever I hear of US trying to seem to be beneficiary in something. This unfortunately adds fire to the trouble in the Middle East. If you are islamic radical it is extremely easy to recruit people by showing them factual, real, undeniable misbehavior of US. This lack of moral grounding is exactly the reason why actions by US do not bring expected effects. Local population treats US forces with resentment not because they are fundamentally anti-US but because they see US as a corrupt replacement for their current corrupt government. A larger lesson is that you want somebody teach virtuous behavior you need to be able to show the virtue yourself or you are not going to achieve very much in terms of results. --- Also, my experience about downvotes is this kind of comment even if genuinely to show what's an example of sentiment outside of US, will typically get a lot of upvotes during US night time and then gets suddenly killed when US wakes up. Just an interesting thing I noticed which, for me, validates the whole point that US doesn't like to acknowledge resentment it gets from most of the world and that US problems aren't actually the same as world problems regardless of how US would like to portray it.
- _heimdall 6y ago
  I do agree with your sentiment here, but to clarify: 272,000 children died of maleria in 2018, or 745 per day. Still a terrible number, and I don't think anyone would say that its okay if it takes a week for as many children to die from malaria as were lost on 9/11, but statics do matter
  - lmilcin 6y ago
mschuster91 6y ago
> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? Actually for the Western and Western-allied world this is wrong. 9/11 marked the begin of the dismantling of citizen rights in too many countries - from such relatively harmless things as stricter rules on flights and mandatory body searches to justifications for nation-scale espionage or, with the Brits, even allowing the government to lock people up for not revealing passwords.
Communitivity 6y ago
In some ways this comment is spot on, but in many others it's not. England, Australia, France and Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11. All of those have put in place much increased physical, telecommunications and financial surveillance, except maybe France (I don't know about France). Perhaps not post-9-11 world outside the U.S., but definitely a world in terror from the governments' point of view. From an average citizen POV, it's probably more like 'Didn't something happen a few years ago at an Ariana Grande concert?'.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  > ..., Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11. Germany hasn't - we've had much worse terror attacks in the years before 9-11. I'll just mention the Oktoberfest attack or the attack on the munich olympic games. In terms of collective scare, the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) far eclipses any terror risk after 9-11. Even today, more people get killed by Nazi supporters than other terrorists. We still have put a lot of restrictive measures in place, but it's more that 9-11 and terrorism act as a convenient leverage to impose those measures and not the actual danger.
  - waffle_ss 6y ago
    Germany had a role in the 9/11 attacks by letting the Hamburg cell slip under their radar
    - Communitivity 6y ago
      By that reasoning you might say the US had a huge role in 9/11 because the Bin Laden issue station failed to identify and prevent his attacks. I wouldn't say that, they did the best they could with the budget they had, and the approvals they were (or weren't) given.
      - waffle_ss 6y ago
        I'm responding to the Europeans who want to wrap 9/11 (and further, Islamic terrorism) into a tidy "America's problem" package when it clearly isn't
627467 6y ago
That seems to be a narrow interpretation of what OP originally meant as "post 911 world". While direct consequences of that event are localized and ripple effects definitely affected way more than 10% of the world. Think the direct impact on allied countries who had to send troops to Afganistan. Think airtravel security (theatre). Think financial regulation. Darn.. think the following Middle East interventions by Western Allies. You could say that Syrian civil war today with millions of refugees had direct impact of 911 and subsequent western (and not so western) intervention in Middle East.
vikramkr 6y ago
there absolutely is a post 9/11 world, because 9/11 affected a country that has outsized power and influence on the world stage. Relevant to this discussion, massive changes in financial regulation significantly impacted how money moved and how trade can be co ducted internationally. Let's also not forget the decades long wars in the middle east triggered by 9/11, with all the netions involved and the widespread feonts the "war on terror" engages in. Especially in the Middle East, 9/11 mattered, because it mattered to the US and allies, and the US and allies responded with invasions.
mellow2020 6y ago
If you remove "in a post-911 world" from that comment the point stays exactly the same.
monoideism 6y ago
> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world Are you aware that any major national event that has a large impact on one of the world's greatest powers will have fallout that affects the rest of the world? I'd think after debacles like Iraq, that should be obvious.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whycombagator 6y ago
The world is a very difference place post 9/11 whether you believe it or not. I mean 9/11 did prompt NATO's article 5 to get invoked. 9/11, Article 5, & the ensuing war certainly changed the landscape for North America and Europe. Other world powers like China took notice as a result. Don't forget the heightened fears around that time, which were stoked by the 2004 Madrid & 2005 London train bombings. So although post 9/11 is often viewed as US centric, it undoubtedly affected much of Europe, and it's ripples were felt throughout much of the developed world. While many nations might not have 9/11 in the forefront of their minds, like Americans do, they probably have had their foreign/domestic policy influenced as a result of 9/11's side effects & view the threat of terrorism very differently to a pre 9/11 world.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the the post 9/11 concept. While the event itself was small in the grand scheme, I think the reaction is more impactful than you give it credit for. It caused a meaningful shift in the geopolitical strategy of the world's largest economy and military power. The 9/11 world is very obvious in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
xtracto 6y ago
I don´t know about you, but in my country it became a chore to flight after US 9/11 thing...

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

Are you saying "it can't happen here"? If that's the case, then I believe you're mistaken. This incident would be a good catalyst for any (90% or 10%) country to ensure their ports are more secure. (I'm aware of the breathlessness of the comment, and I was going to edit it tone it down a bit, but people had already started replying - I'll stand by it as-is.)

ckastner 6y ago

> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? In the financial world, there definitely is. Because of how 9/11 was bankrolled, AML laws were severely tightened. Quoting the subject line of the relevant EU directive [1]: "[...] prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing" Which is the point that the grandparent was getting to. Edit: To be more specific, in today's financial world, technically, shell companies should be pointless because any bank transacting with such a company is required to know the beneficial owner, ie the natural person ultimately behind that company (no matter how many layers). [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0849&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
If you have eight figure net worth or access to same from external sources it's not particularly difficult to start your own offshore bank. It's also pretty easy to buy a passport and create a fake identity. And not that much harder to create nominee directors who will never be vetted. And/or to create "legitimate" businesses with interests in art, property, and other high-value items - including in-game currencies - which can be used to transfer assets in creative ways. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/money-laundering-hmrc-tax-update https://www.wired.co.uk/article/money-laundering-hmrc-tax-up... And if you've been following the history of Wirecard you'll understand how easy it is to create a legitimate cover story for what appear to have been some rather less legitimate background operations. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/07/18/worlds-most-wanted-man-jan-marsalek-located-in-belarus-data-points-to-russian-intel-links/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/07/18/wor... And even if you go with a traditional bank, KYC is mostly box ticking. And some of the biggest banks have been directly implicated in money laundering, AML laws and all. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...
- ckastner 6y ago
  > If you have eight figure net worth or access to same from external sources it's not particularly difficult to start your own offshore bank. An eight figure net worth is not even close when it comes to considering starting an own bank. Furthermore, offshore today means just one thing: "red flag". Because of AML rules, the list of Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories [1], and FATCA/CRS reporting, the only people still going through the hassle of using offshore to hide something are people who really want to hide something -- hence the red flag. Finally, banks don't exist by themselves. They need other banks to partner and transaction with. For example: say you are a bank in the British Virgin Islands. Now try to buy stock on the NYSE. For that, you need a bank with access, and no bank with access would partner with some shady outfit. > And if you've been following the history of Wirecard Wirecard is a scandal beyond comparison. It is unfathomable to me how this could have gone on so long. To contrast that, working for a bank myself, I was involved in numerous audits by financial regulators, and you wouldn't believe the level of detail they went into. Any flaw or inconsistency -- no matter how trivial, at what org level, or even across levels or topics -- was brought up. But perhaps that was just coincidence, and we had the luck of being audited by most the diligent of auditors. > And even if you go with a traditional bank, KYC is mostly box ticking. Absolutely not true, at least not with the banks I'm familiar with (and our peer group services mainly high-net-worth clients). Every single client can be subject of an AML audit. Any irregularity in a record will be construed as an overall failure of AML policies in the institution. You don't just "tick the boxes" with high-risk clients. Background checks happen. Plausibility checks happen. > And some of the biggest banks have been directly implicated in money laundering, AML laws and all. Laws cannot prevent crime, they can only deter crime. Yes, big banks are occasionally still involved in money laundering, but compare this to 20 years ago. The incentives are diminishing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATF_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATF_blacklist
  - eigen 6y ago
    > An eight figure net worth is not even close when it comes to considering starting an own bank. there are many credit unions with < $1 million in assets. https://www.bestcashcow.com/credit-unions/page-499 https://www.bestcashcow.com/credit-unions/page-499
neiman 6y ago
Wasn't the EU directive was put in place after terror attacks in Europe in the previous decade? What does 9/11 got to do with it?
- ckastner 6y ago
  The first iteration of the aforementioned EU directive was published in 2005 [1]. Before that, individual countries had tightened their individual rules. The Wikipedia page on money laundering [2] details the consequences of 9/11 on regulation quite well. The keyword there is the "Financial Action Task Force", whose recommendations the EU directive aimed to implement. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32005L0060 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#History
  - neiman 6y ago
    Thank you, I take what I wrote back.

lmilcin 6y ago

Yeah... that's very good point. From my point of view as Polish citizen 911 is a problem that US developed for itself through their actions in the Middle East. I don't want to sound insensitive, 3 thousand people is of course a tragedy, but on a scale of entire Earth I think it is preposterous for US citizens to get obsessed after this one when more kids are dying to malaria every single day or for multitude of other problems. Looking from my point of view, it is that US rallies for some causes where it seems to suit US interests. There are so many countries that need help but in recent years whether a country gets US presence seems largely dependent on whether there is oil there and US is all too happy to turn their face away if the government of the oil-rich country is collaborating with US. This is a sore to many eyes and I just can't help to remember it whenever I hear of US trying to seem to be beneficiary in something. This unfortunately adds fire to the trouble in the Middle East. If you are islamic radical it is extremely easy to recruit people by showing them factual, real, undeniable misbehavior of US. This lack of moral grounding is exactly the reason why actions by US do not bring expected effects. Local population treats US forces with resentment not because they are fundamentally anti-US but because they see US as a corrupt replacement for their current corrupt government. A larger lesson is that you want somebody teach virtuous behavior you need to be able to show the virtue yourself or you are not going to achieve very much in terms of results. --- Also, my experience about downvotes is this kind of comment even if genuinely to show what's an example of sentiment outside of US, will typically get a lot of upvotes during US night time and then gets suddenly killed when US wakes up. Just an interesting thing I noticed which, for me, validates the whole point that US doesn't like to acknowledge resentment it gets from most of the world and that US problems aren't actually the same as world problems regardless of how US would like to portray it.

_heimdall 6y ago
I do agree with your sentiment here, but to clarify: 272,000 children died of maleria in 2018, or 745 per day. Still a terrible number, and I don't think anyone would say that its okay if it takes a week for as many children to die from malaria as were lost on 9/11, but statics do matter
- lmilcin 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world, right? Actually for the Western and Western-allied world this is wrong. 9/11 marked the begin of the dismantling of citizen rights in too many countries - from such relatively harmless things as stricter rules on flights and mandatory body searches to justifications for nation-scale espionage or, with the Brits, even allowing the government to lock people up for not revealing passwords.

Communitivity 6y ago

In some ways this comment is spot on, but in many others it's not. England, Australia, France and Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11. All of those have put in place much increased physical, telecommunications and financial surveillance, except maybe France (I don't know about France). Perhaps not post-9-11 world outside the U.S., but definitely a world in terror from the governments' point of view. From an average citizen POV, it's probably more like 'Didn't something happen a few years ago at an Ariana Grande concert?'.

Xylakant 6y ago
> ..., Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11. Germany hasn't - we've had much worse terror attacks in the years before 9-11. I'll just mention the Oktoberfest attack or the attack on the munich olympic games. In terms of collective scare, the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) far eclipses any terror risk after 9-11. Even today, more people get killed by Nazi supporters than other terrorists. We still have put a lot of restrictive measures in place, but it's more that 9-11 and terrorism act as a convenient leverage to impose those measures and not the actual danger.
- waffle_ss 6y ago
  Germany had a role in the 9/11 attacks by letting the Hamburg cell slip under their radar
  - Communitivity 6y ago
    By that reasoning you might say the US had a huge role in 9/11 because the Bin Laden issue station failed to identify and prevent his attacks. I wouldn't say that, they did the best they could with the budget they had, and the approvals they were (or weren't) given.
    - waffle_ss 6y ago
      I'm responding to the Europeans who want to wrap 9/11 (and further, Islamic terrorism) into a tidy "America's problem" package when it clearly isn't

627467 6y ago

That seems to be a narrow interpretation of what OP originally meant as "post 911 world". While direct consequences of that event are localized and ripple effects definitely affected way more than 10% of the world. Think the direct impact on allied countries who had to send troops to Afganistan. Think airtravel security (theatre). Think financial regulation. Darn.. think the following Middle East interventions by Western Allies. You could say that Syrian civil war today with millions of refugees had direct impact of 911 and subsequent western (and not so western) intervention in Middle East.

vikramkr 6y ago

there absolutely is a post 9/11 world, because 9/11 affected a country that has outsized power and influence on the world stage. Relevant to this discussion, massive changes in financial regulation significantly impacted how money moved and how trade can be co ducted internationally. Let's also not forget the decades long wars in the middle east triggered by 9/11, with all the netions involved and the widespread feonts the "war on terror" engages in. Especially in the Middle East, 9/11 mattered, because it mattered to the US and allies, and the US and allies responded with invasions.

mellow2020 6y ago

If you remove "in a post-911 world" from that comment the point stays exactly the same.

monoideism 6y ago

> you are aware that there is no "post 911 world" in 90% of the world Are you aware that any major national event that has a large impact on one of the world's greatest powers will have fallout that affects the rest of the world? I'd think after debacles like Iraq, that should be obvious.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whycombagator 6y ago

The world is a very difference place post 9/11 whether you believe it or not. I mean 9/11 did prompt NATO's article 5 to get invoked. 9/11, Article 5, & the ensuing war certainly changed the landscape for North America and Europe. Other world powers like China took notice as a result. Don't forget the heightened fears around that time, which were stoked by the 2004 Madrid & 2005 London train bombings. So although post 9/11 is often viewed as US centric, it undoubtedly affected much of Europe, and it's ripples were felt throughout much of the developed world. While many nations might not have 9/11 in the forefront of their minds, like Americans do, they probably have had their foreign/domestic policy influenced as a result of 9/11's side effects & view the threat of terrorism very differently to a pre 9/11 world.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think you are misunderstanding the the post 9/11 concept. While the event itself was small in the grand scheme, I think the reaction is more impactful than you give it credit for. It caused a meaningful shift in the geopolitical strategy of the world's largest economy and military power. The 9/11 world is very obvious in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.

xtracto 6y ago

I don´t know about you, but in my country it became a chore to flight after US 9/11 thing...