4 ms·
If the above is true: >If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are d
by anonymouse008 6y ago
If the above is true:
>If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are doing something else (and more common).
Isn't it easier (and more effective to the goal) to query the attorney of record, Articles of Organization filer, registered agent (etc from the Secretary of State), and have a more stringent eye on what they do, rather than taking personal identities to the Treasury?
The fault is not the individual, it's the supporting system that allows for thousands of anonymous LLCs to be coordinated - that only can happen through a support structure - that should be easy to identify through the current data.
Edit: also, yes, as another comment mentioned, thank you for chiming in. Very rarely do people get to speak to decision makers and advisors in these positions - this is real democracy at work.
- anonymouse008 6y agoI'll add a second bit of context - a well respected member of Congress once told me, paraphrased "we do not regulate out in front. We are America. We are usually behind when it comes to regulations. We are free." So, this legislation feels like a break from that consciousness. Instead of playing cat and mouse with these entities - which the above quote illustrates as the American legislative way - we are going for the jugular of this issue.
- zepto 6y agoAnonymous shell companies have been a problem for decades, to the point that they are a standard trope in movies and TV. How is this ‘regulating out front’?
- anonymouse008 6y agoBecause the methods these shell companies employ to coordinate give off a greater signal in the 21st century datasets — going the personal identifier route, you’re able to target people based on personal affiliations. The goal is admirable — however, this act as a solution is hasty (opportunistic) and disguised itself as “protecting against (insert threat).”
- zepto 6y agoI’m not sure how this answers the question. How is it hasty when the problem is decades old?
- anonymouse008 6y agoHasty (maybe I should say opportunistic) because it’s ideological reasoning to pass is capitalizing on the current zeitgeist (which I believe to be leaning more antithetical to the quote above). Again, the reason this bill is intriguing is because the problem can be solved through other methods - albeit more effortful. You don’t really need beneficial identifiers on these types of companies to get who’s doing bad things.
- zepto 6y agoWhat ideological reasoning are you referring to?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Isn't it easier (and more effective to the goal) to query the attorney of record, Articles of Organization filer, registered agent (etc from the Secretary of State), and have a more stringent eye on what they do Formation documents and registered agents track legal ownership. An attorney may have a line to the beneficial owner. Or it may be to another attorney. Either way, that is protected by attorney-client privilege. There is nobody logging beneficial ownership. The closest are banks, which started requiring beneficial ownership information only last year. Unbanked entities are dark. Put another way, this bill is putting that “more stringent eye” on the system.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]