4 ms·
This sounds like the system is working as intended. Banks are encouraged to report suspicious activity, and are encouraged to take a fee on the transactions the
by yodon 6y ago
This sounds like the system is working as intended. Banks are encouraged to report suspicious activity, and are encouraged to take a fee on the transactions they report as suspicious. This gives the government the info it needs to engage in prosecution and gives the banks a financial motivation to report the suspicious transactions. The report makes this obvious legislatively driven outcome sound like some sort of evil-doing complicity with villains on the part of the banks. Is there something more deeply malicious on the bank's part here than simply behaving in the way anyone reading the legislation would expect them to behave?
- kneel 6y agoBanks have the power to stop obvious money laundering by shady characters by denying the transaction, instead they look the other way, send a report and collect a fee.
- mathgladiator 6y agowhich could be ideal if the government is trying to build a larger case. It is strategically murky to give banks the power to deny.
- wavefunction 6y agoBanks have the power to deny transactions unilaterally already.
- burkaman 6y agoIf it's the intentional effect of legislation, does that mean it's above reproach?
- mjw1007 6y agoFrom https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54225572 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54225572 : « By law, they have to know who their clients are - it's not enough to file SARs and keep taking dirty money from clients while expecting enforcers to deal with the problem. If they have evidence of criminal activity, they should stop moving the cash. » If that's true, I don't think the banks are simply behaving in the way anyone reading the legislation would expect them to behave.