So called anti-money laundering laws, which are properly described as warrantless financial surveillance laws, are an absolute travesty and violate the core pri

So called anti-money laundering laws, which are properly described as warrantless financial surveillance laws, are an absolute travesty and violate the core principles of liberal democratic societies. Historically, the state being required to obtain a warrant before conducting a search was seen as striking the right balance between the need to maintain reasonable checks on the power of the state, and the need to investigate crime. And in one summit, of the G7 in 1989, all of that was cast aside, as the FATF, and its global financial mass-surveillance mission, were instituted. What's important to know about AML laws is that they are redundant; any incident of actual money laundering involves some underlying crime that generated the illicit revenue. To prove money laundering occurred, you need to prove that the underlying crime occurred. In other words, any actual money laundering that is proven would land the party involved in prison, for the underlying crime. But existing 'AML' laws do not require proving money laundering occurred. They only require proving that a person did not comply with the AML-related disclosure requirements, i.e. not complying with warrantless mass-surveillance. The crime being prosecuted is not surrendering privacy. Ron Pol has written a paper that makes the case for AML laws being the least effective policy in history, and I strongly recommend any one who cares about maintaining a free society to read it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1...