4 ms·

I'm not sure if this system of reporting is good or even well intentioned, or if it might be overly authoritarian as some replies here seem to think. However,

I'm not sure if this system of reporting is good or even well intentioned, or if it might be overly authoritarian as some replies here seem to think. However, what's being argued is clearly not just that banks are diligently flagging transactions only to be ignored by law enforcement. > They [the leaked files] show banks blindly moving cash through their accounts for people they can’t identify, failing to report transactions with all the hallmarks of money laundering until years after the fact, even doing business with clients enmeshed in financial frauds and public corruption scandals. > Authorities in the U.S., who play a leading role in the global battle against money laundering, have ordered big banks to reform their practices, fined them hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars, and held threats of criminal charges over them as part of so-called deferred prosecution agreements. > A 16-month investigation by ICIJ and its reporting partners shows that these headline-making tactics haven’t worked. Big banks continue to play a central role in moving money tied to corruption, fraud, organized crime and terrorism. https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/global-banks-defy-u-s-crackdowns-by-serving-oligarchs-criminals-and-terrorists/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/global-bank...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> They [the leaked files] show banks blindly moving cash through their accounts for people they can’t identify, This doesn't seem like a solvable problem in practice. In theory KYC laws require them to know who the customer is, but what does that even mean? The shell corporation whose sole purpose is to be listed as the customer of the bank? The straw man with no ties to the underlying organization who received a bag of cash to be listed as that corporation's executive? All KYC laws really do is harass innocent people who have trouble meeting their requirements. The people moving large sums illicitly can work around it by paying a fixed amount to do these kinds of shell games, which the ordinary people dealing with ordinary sums of money can't afford but the big time criminals can. > failing to report transactions with all the hallmarks of money laundering until years after the fact This sounds more like garden variety bureaucratic incompetence than some kind of malicious activity. After all, if they were actually in cahoots with the bad guys, they'd have advised them how to make their transactions not have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" to begin with. Also, a lot of perfectly legitimate transactions have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" because money laundering is, by definition, designed to look like a lot of perfectly legitimate transactions. > even doing business with clients enmeshed in financial frauds and public corruption scandals How is that not what they're supposed to do? To do otherwise would be to presume guilt rather than innocence. Imagine you get falsely accused of some kind of fraudulent activity and while you're busy proving your innocence in court, you get evicted from your house and have your car repossessed because no bank will allow you to make your loan payments while "enmeshed" in those false accusations.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > This sounds more like garden variety bureaucratic incompetence than some kind of malicious activity. After all, if they were actually in cahoots with the bad guys, they'd have advised them how to make their transactions not have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" to begin with. They don't need to do even that to begin with, they only need to pay to open a bank once. And polities like Cyprus, British dependent territories, Eastern Europe keep setting records for the number of banks per capita.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> They [the leaked files] show banks blindly moving cash through their accounts for people they can’t identify, This doesn't seem like a solvable problem in practice. In theory KYC laws require them to know who the customer is, but what does that even mean? The shell corporation whose sole purpose is to be listed as the customer of the bank? The straw man with no ties to the underlying organization who received a bag of cash to be listed as that corporation's executive? All KYC laws really do is harass innocent people who have trouble meeting their requirements. The people moving large sums illicitly can work around it by paying a fixed amount to do these kinds of shell games, which the ordinary people dealing with ordinary sums of money can't afford but the big time criminals can. > failing to report transactions with all the hallmarks of money laundering until years after the fact This sounds more like garden variety bureaucratic incompetence than some kind of malicious activity. After all, if they were actually in cahoots with the bad guys, they'd have advised them how to make their transactions not have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" to begin with. Also, a lot of perfectly legitimate transactions have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" because money laundering is, by definition, designed to look like a lot of perfectly legitimate transactions. > even doing business with clients enmeshed in financial frauds and public corruption scandals How is that not what they're supposed to do? To do otherwise would be to presume guilt rather than innocence. Imagine you get falsely accused of some kind of fraudulent activity and while you're busy proving your innocence in court, you get evicted from your house and have your car repossessed because no bank will allow you to make your loan payments while "enmeshed" in those false accusations.

baybal2 6y ago
> This sounds more like garden variety bureaucratic incompetence than some kind of malicious activity. After all, if they were actually in cahoots with the bad guys, they'd have advised them how to make their transactions not have "all the hallmarks of money laundering" to begin with. They don't need to do even that to begin with, they only need to pay to open a bank once. And polities like Cyprus, British dependent territories, Eastern Europe keep setting records for the number of banks per capita.