4 ms·

>>The problem is that it doesn't actually work for organizations with that level of resources. Obviously, this is not their sole means of laundering, and your

by toss1 6y ago

>>The problem is that it doesn't actually work for organizations with that level of resources. Obviously, this is not their sole means of laundering, and your other examples are some likely ploys at other scales. But any large scale organized crime venture is fractal, it goes from the global scale, all the way down to the entry-level neighborhood crooks, and your shipping or IP ploy doesn't work for a wide range of scams, but $billions in small-scale cards do. Same for BTC, where you can transfer billions, but how do you smurf out $1billion into $USD? it's got to be 101K++ transactions under $10K, and widely distributed. What your article proves is that your last line is completely wrong. The criminal breaking the law again means that the applied penalty was an insufficient deterrent. The prosecutors and judges did not apply sufficient penalties. Cutting the profits of HBSC is insufficient, they need to apply the tracking and *jail* the mgt/execs that allow it. The Anti-money laundering laws work *to the extent that they are enforced*. Lack of enforcement does not mean the law doesn't work. Your small desire to evade a nonexistent and ineffective scrutiny about where you spend your VISA gift card does not outweigh the need for the still-democratic countries to attempt to survive an onslaught of transnational organized crime attempting to implement autocracies to enable their crime.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> But any large scale organized crime venture is fractal, it goes from the global scale, all the way down to the entry-level neighborhood crooks, and your shipping or IP ploy doesn't work for a wide range of scams, but $billions in small-scale cards do. But there are thousands of other methods, arbitrarily many, for doing the same thing at any scale. > Same for BTC, where you can transfer billions, but how do you smurf out $1billion into $USD? it's got to be 101K++ transactions under $10K, and widely distributed. I'm not really seeing the difference. Option one, the dealers make $9000 in cash, go buy $9000 worth of some non-perishable commodity and put it in a shipping container. Repeat until the shipping container is full, then ship it to the place they want the money to end up. Option two, do the same thing with Bitcoin. All they need is someone willing to sell Bitcoin for cash. > The prosecutors and judges did not apply sufficient penalties. The War on Drugs fallacy. "The problem isn't that the entire thing is an exercise in futility, it's that the penalty isn't high enough." The criminals discount the penalty regardless of what it is because they don't expect to get caught. They're often right. > Your small desire to evade a nonexistent and ineffective scrutiny about where you spend your VISA gift card You've being overly flippant about the legitimate concerns and chilling effects of surveillance on vulnerable populations who have to worry about not only what the data is used for today, but what will happen to them if the winds change and the data on what they do today is still in the database five years from now. > the need for the still-democratic countries to attempt to survive an onslaught of transnational organized crime attempting to implement autocracies to enable their crime. Or you could just decriminalize drugs and put them all out of business.
- toss1 6y ago
  Totally agree on decriminalizing drugs. However, if you think that will put them out of biz, think again. Start with the RUS govt which is a straight-up kleptocracy, a trans-national crime syndicate, which has literally stolen 90%+ of the nations wealth into the hands of a few dozen oligarchs (start reading up a bit on Simeon Mogilevich). Their biggest problem is laundering money, and they are exporting authoritarianism. We are currently under Asymmetric Warfare attack, and it is on all fronts. Meanwhile, there is no govt agency FINCEN, NSA, or otherwise that is authorized or even GAF in the slightest about any marginal person. Your propposed threat model is just silly in the real world. What, some agent with terabytes of data streaming in is going to do what, find some trans person buying a dildo and send a local cop out to bust their taillight? Seriously, they've all got better stuff to do. None of us are that important, unless we start using those cards to smurf funds for terrorists or foreign powers -- THEN we WANT them to notice. BTW, if you think it is bad here, go check out the rights marginalized people have in RUS or similar authoritarian regimes. What is being fought for is the right to NOT have such an authoritarian govt here.

by toss1 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> But any large scale organized crime venture is fractal, it goes from the global scale, all the way down to the entry-level neighborhood crooks, and your shipping or IP ploy doesn't work for a wide range of scams, but $billions in small-scale cards do. But there are thousands of other methods, arbitrarily many, for doing the same thing at any scale. > Same for BTC, where you can transfer billions, but how do you smurf out $1billion into $USD? it's got to be 101K++ transactions under $10K, and widely distributed. I'm not really seeing the difference. Option one, the dealers make $9000 in cash, go buy $9000 worth of some non-perishable commodity and put it in a shipping container. Repeat until the shipping container is full, then ship it to the place they want the money to end up. Option two, do the same thing with Bitcoin. All they need is someone willing to sell Bitcoin for cash. > The prosecutors and judges did not apply sufficient penalties. The War on Drugs fallacy. "The problem isn't that the entire thing is an exercise in futility, it's that the penalty isn't high enough." The criminals discount the penalty regardless of what it is because they don't expect to get caught. They're often right. > Your small desire to evade a nonexistent and ineffective scrutiny about where you spend your VISA gift card You've being overly flippant about the legitimate concerns and chilling effects of surveillance on vulnerable populations who have to worry about not only what the data is used for today, but what will happen to them if the winds change and the data on what they do today is still in the database five years from now. > the need for the still-democratic countries to attempt to survive an onslaught of transnational organized crime attempting to implement autocracies to enable their crime. Or you could just decriminalize drugs and put them all out of business.

toss1 6y ago
Totally agree on decriminalizing drugs. However, if you think that will put them out of biz, think again. Start with the RUS govt which is a straight-up kleptocracy, a trans-national crime syndicate, which has literally stolen 90%+ of the nations wealth into the hands of a few dozen oligarchs (start reading up a bit on Simeon Mogilevich). Their biggest problem is laundering money, and they are exporting authoritarianism. We are currently under Asymmetric Warfare attack, and it is on all fronts. Meanwhile, there is no govt agency FINCEN, NSA, or otherwise that is authorized or even GAF in the slightest about any marginal person. Your propposed threat model is just silly in the real world. What, some agent with terabytes of data streaming in is going to do what, find some trans person buying a dildo and send a local cop out to bust their taillight? Seriously, they've all got better stuff to do. None of us are that important, unless we start using those cards to smurf funds for terrorists or foreign powers -- THEN we WANT them to notice. BTW, if you think it is bad here, go check out the rights marginalized people have in RUS or similar authoritarian regimes. What is being fought for is the right to NOT have such an authoritarian govt here.