3 ms·
On top of all that (with which I fully agree), it's not even effective, in any plausible sense of that word. If this analysis[1] is to be believed, AML laws re
by boring_twenties 5y ago
On top of all that (with which I fully agree), it's not even effective, in any plausible sense of that word.
If this analysis[1] is to be believed, AML laws recover less than 1% of estimated laundered funds, at an explicit cost at least an order of magnitude higher than what is actually recovered.
That's not even including the implicit costs, e.g. when innocent people get caught up and lose their accounts or even their funds.
Travesty doesn't even begin to cover it.
[1] https://www.ledgerinsights.com/anti-money-laundering-has-less-than-1-impact-on-crime-at-what-cost/ https://www.ledgerinsights.com/anti-money-laundering-has-les...
- FabHK 5y ago> an explicit cost at least an order of magnitude higher than what is actually recovered. The goal is not to make money with AML laws, but to deter and prosecute crime (which has huge externalities itself). Is it effective at that? Your comment doesn't address that.
- edoceo 5y agoIf it's only capturing 1% of the dirty money it's not effective at deterring nor is it an effective part of the prosecution.
- nulbyte 5y agoThat poses the potential problem of circular reasoning. How do we arrive at this estimate of 1%? Maybe it is more than 1% of the actual value because the estimate is wrong.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pgwhalen 5y agoConsider this scenario: current AML practices catch 1% of laundered money, but deter additional money laundering 100x. In effect, this means nearly all money laundering is stopped because of these practices. That seems extreme to me, but it does seem possible.