4 ms·
The mere existence of a third party being able to look at financial data doesn't automatically make you vulnerable, so having convoluted additional third partie
by vmception 5y ago
The mere existence of a third party being able to look at financial data doesn't automatically make you vulnerable, so having convoluted additional third parties like insurers pay out with “clean money” isnt necessary, nor is absolute anonymity to banks or government necessary.
Just because there could be a bank or lawyer or someone that can see where the money came from doesn't mean that you can't successfully pass muster.
Protip: A federal money laundering conviction requires an illicit origin. Successful money laundering never has an illicit origin.
Therefore, money laundering charges can only be tacked on retroactively, in addition to another charge based on an illegal action that occurred.
And simply having or moving money is not probable cause. But obviously people can mess this up if they really didn't bother covering their tracks. But if they actually laundered it already then no.
- gowld 5y ago> And simply having or moving money is not probable cause. What do you mean? AML laws specifically call for investigating suspicious transactions.
- vmception 5y agoThey require banks to file notices of some transactions from non-KYC’d sources But not from sources they’ve assumed to be KYC’d The notice merely gives the government paperwork to make their job easier if an investigation begins. It doesn’t begin the investigation.