3 ms·

Right, and the expected course of action isn't to freeze the customer’s funds Worst case is to end a banking relationship because the bank doesnt know what to

Right, and the expected course of action isn't to freeze the customer’s funds Worst case is to end a banking relationship because the bank doesnt know what to do with them and just give them their money in a check. The transaction will still happen, multiple transactions in fact. The average case is just making the SAR and spamming the regulator. Its a dumb regime, like you said. The US should just get out of the business of spending resources on this. Which it partially seems like the regulator is trying to do :)

joe_the_user 6y ago
The argument of the article is that the journalists involved further investigated the transactions and determined that a lot were shady and that the regulators were failing to do their job ... or the banks were defying the regulators when the regulators were complaining. There was no claim of "every FinCEN proves a dirty deed" - it's explicit in the article.
- thu2111 6y ago
  The article makes a lot of bold claims that assume the truth of various unproven allegations. Journalists - who are paid to come up with dramatic sounding stories - are the exact opposite of the arbiters of truth when it comes to crime. Examples: "people and companies tied to the massive looting of public funds in Malaysia" Tied to? Tied by whom? "more than $2 million for a young energy mogul’s company that has been accused of cheating" Accused of? Accused by whom? "amid a swirl of money laundering and corruption allegations spawning from his work with a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine." A swirl of allegations? Alleged by whom? Additionally the article is filled with deceptive writing. "In some cases the banks kept moving illicit funds even after U.S. officials warned them they’d face criminal prosecutions if they didn’t stop doing business with mobsters, fraudsters or corrupt regimes." This sounds like the warnings were about specific mobsters/etc but it's carefully phrased to avoid claiming that. Yes, the USG tells banks to fight crime, everyone who ever opened a bank account knows that, this is not news. "Suspicious activity reports reflect the concerns of watchdogs within banks and are not necessarily evidence of criminal conduct or other wrongdoing. Though a vast amount, the $2 trillion in suspicious transactions identified within this set of documents is just a drop in a far larger flood of dirty money" One sentence after admitting that SARS aren't actual findings of criminal activity, they literally say that all those transactions are a part of "a flood of dirty money". They know that's not true! It's kind of sad, really. Journalism has reached the point where my first reaction to investigative journalists writing about leaked files is, "how are these liars going to BS me today?". It's a long way from the heydey of the Snowden leaks.
GreeniFi 6y ago
The “policy take-away” from the article seems to be that governments let it happen. I wonder if anyone on this board understands whether government inaction is due to incompetence, complacency or corruption. I guess like many issues these days it’s a bit of all 3, but I say that on the basis of my priors rather than domain experience.
- zacharyvoase 6y ago
  You also need to consider the possibility that it's in the government's interest to allow a certain amount of otherwise-unlawful activity to occur, and make the perpetrators think it's going unnoticed, to trace a broader pattern/catch a bigger fish.

joe_the_user 6y ago

The argument of the article is that the journalists involved further investigated the transactions and determined that a lot were shady and that the regulators were failing to do their job ... or the banks were defying the regulators when the regulators were complaining. There was no claim of "every FinCEN proves a dirty deed" - it's explicit in the article.

thu2111 6y ago
The article makes a lot of bold claims that assume the truth of various unproven allegations. Journalists - who are paid to come up with dramatic sounding stories - are the exact opposite of the arbiters of truth when it comes to crime. Examples: "people and companies tied to the massive looting of public funds in Malaysia" Tied to? Tied by whom? "more than $2 million for a young energy mogul’s company that has been accused of cheating" Accused of? Accused by whom? "amid a swirl of money laundering and corruption allegations spawning from his work with a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine." A swirl of allegations? Alleged by whom? Additionally the article is filled with deceptive writing. "In some cases the banks kept moving illicit funds even after U.S. officials warned them they’d face criminal prosecutions if they didn’t stop doing business with mobsters, fraudsters or corrupt regimes." This sounds like the warnings were about specific mobsters/etc but it's carefully phrased to avoid claiming that. Yes, the USG tells banks to fight crime, everyone who ever opened a bank account knows that, this is not news. "Suspicious activity reports reflect the concerns of watchdogs within banks and are not necessarily evidence of criminal conduct or other wrongdoing. Though a vast amount, the $2 trillion in suspicious transactions identified within this set of documents is just a drop in a far larger flood of dirty money" One sentence after admitting that SARS aren't actual findings of criminal activity, they literally say that all those transactions are a part of "a flood of dirty money". They know that's not true! It's kind of sad, really. Journalism has reached the point where my first reaction to investigative journalists writing about leaked files is, "how are these liars going to BS me today?". It's a long way from the heydey of the Snowden leaks.

GreeniFi 6y ago

The “policy take-away” from the article seems to be that governments let it happen. I wonder if anyone on this board understands whether government inaction is due to incompetence, complacency or corruption. I guess like many issues these days it’s a bit of all 3, but I say that on the basis of my priors rather than domain experience.

zacharyvoase 6y ago
You also need to consider the possibility that it's in the government's interest to allow a certain amount of otherwise-unlawful activity to occur, and make the perpetrators think it's going unnoticed, to trace a broader pattern/catch a bigger fish.