3 ms·

> makes us all co-dependent. Co-dependent isn't synonymous with subservient. To convince yourself of that fact, try to find an instance of a situation where t

> makes us all co-dependent. Co-dependent isn't synonymous with subservient. To convince yourself of that fact, try to find an instance of a situation where the NL forced the US to comply to an NL-originated rule and was successful.

jacquesm 4y ago
This happens all the time, so I'm not too worried about that. As for the 'subservient': international finance is a complex and extremely delicate subject, what triggered all this oversight was that Europe had become the laundromat of the world, and things were really getting out of hand. For instance: https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-a-money-laundering-risk-latvia-looks-to-rebuild-reputation-in-face-of-russia-sanctions-11651224602 https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-a-money-laundering-risk-la... Similar stories about dutch (large) banks: https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/04/19/abn-amro-betaalt-480-miljoen-euro-vanwege-ernstige-tekortkomingen-bij-het-bestrijden-van-witwassen https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/04/19/abn-amro-betaalt... This isn't a theoretical risk, no matter where the rule originated. Financial law - like copyright law - is international and the countries that collaborate a lot on this sort of thing because they trade a lot between them would gain an immediate advantage if the rest would play by the same ruleset and one would purposefully break those rules. The deal is that we won't do that. AML and ATF rules exist for a reason and even if the US originated the rules they are in the end quite effective and serve a real purpose, in Europe as well. Finally, the only penalty that US has that it can give is to revoke these banks' ability to do business in USD, and that card can be played exactly once so it's in the end in the banks own interest to play ball. You are mixing NL and EU and probably are not aware that the ECB has decided to enforce a similar regime voluntarily long before individual banks ended up crossing the lines for profit. Of course even though the ECB is not in the pocket of the Americans it is clear that pressure has been brought to bear, but in this particular case it was beneficial, the EU was awash with criminal money seeking all kinds of ways into the respectable world.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I don't think it's good that tiny fish are continually being required to take on extra administrative burdens because of the actions of big bad fish. The US is now toying with the idea of enforcing reporting requirements for any transactions over $600, and ID is demanded for all sorts of minor transactions. I don't want so much 'protection.'
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That won't fly due to practical limitations but it certainly makes you wonder why they would even want such ridiculously low limits to begin with. And agreed, that much 'protection' is ridiculous. But the current 40K limit is manageable for small businesses, who rarely transact such amounts in one go. I've had maybe 10 of those over the last five years and in each case the reporting requirement was easily dealt with.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> try to find an instance of a situation where the NL forced the US to comply to an NL-originated rule and was successful European countries routinely force American firms to do things [1]. Coinbase asking a Dutch user to follow American law isn’t dissimilar from an American having to follow Dutch law when using a Dutch service. No governments are forcing other governments to do anything in this case. [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/18/dutch-court-decision-impacts-global-securities-class-actions/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/18/dutch-court-decis...

jacquesm 4y ago

This happens all the time, so I'm not too worried about that. As for the 'subservient': international finance is a complex and extremely delicate subject, what triggered all this oversight was that Europe had become the laundromat of the world, and things were really getting out of hand. For instance: https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-a-money-laundering-risk-latvia-looks-to-rebuild-reputation-in-face-of-russia-sanctions-11651224602 https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-a-money-laundering-risk-la... Similar stories about dutch (large) banks: https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/04/19/abn-amro-betaalt-480-miljoen-euro-vanwege-ernstige-tekortkomingen-bij-het-bestrijden-van-witwassen https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/04/19/abn-amro-betaalt... This isn't a theoretical risk, no matter where the rule originated. Financial law - like copyright law - is international and the countries that collaborate a lot on this sort of thing because they trade a lot between them would gain an immediate advantage if the rest would play by the same ruleset and one would purposefully break those rules. The deal is that we won't do that. AML and ATF rules exist for a reason and even if the US originated the rules they are in the end quite effective and serve a real purpose, in Europe as well. Finally, the only penalty that US has that it can give is to revoke these banks' ability to do business in USD, and that card can be played exactly once so it's in the end in the banks own interest to play ball. You are mixing NL and EU and probably are not aware that the ECB has decided to enforce a similar regime voluntarily long before individual banks ended up crossing the lines for profit. Of course even though the ECB is not in the pocket of the Americans it is clear that pressure has been brought to bear, but in this particular case it was beneficial, the EU was awash with criminal money seeking all kinds of ways into the respectable world.

anigbrowl 4y ago
I don't think it's good that tiny fish are continually being required to take on extra administrative burdens because of the actions of big bad fish. The US is now toying with the idea of enforcing reporting requirements for any transactions over $600, and ID is demanded for all sorts of minor transactions. I don't want so much 'protection.'
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That won't fly due to practical limitations but it certainly makes you wonder why they would even want such ridiculously low limits to begin with. And agreed, that much 'protection' is ridiculous. But the current 40K limit is manageable for small businesses, who rarely transact such amounts in one go. I've had maybe 10 of those over the last five years and in each case the reporting requirement was easily dealt with.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> try to find an instance of a situation where the NL forced the US to comply to an NL-originated rule and was successful European countries routinely force American firms to do things [1]. Coinbase asking a Dutch user to follow American law isn’t dissimilar from an American having to follow Dutch law when using a Dutch service. No governments are forcing other governments to do anything in this case. [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/18/dutch-court-decision-impacts-global-securities-class-actions/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/18/dutch-court-decis...