4 ms·
It does raise concern but also banks always monitor transactions looking for anomalies. So while this is physical inspection, it’s not far removed from what ba
by mc32 4y ago
It does raise concern but also banks always monitor transactions looking for anomalies. So while this is physical inspection, it’s not far removed from what banks already do with electronic transactions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- RajT88 4y agoIt is quite far removed from what banks do. For example, if a bank detects an anomaly, they report it. What they DO NOT do is transfer the suspicious funds to a police bank account.
- mc32 4y agoWhat I'm saying is I think it _is_ a step too far. I also think it violates people's constitutional rights. But I don't think it's so different from already monitoring people's transactions.
- pc86 4y agoA private organization monitoring transactions and reporting those to the relevant tax authority is "not so different" from police breaking locks open, taking cash without a warrant, and depositing it into the police bank account?
- a-user-you-like 4y agoSo just use a bank that won’t report it.
- RajT88 4y agoThey are slowly arm-twisting those banks into reporting it. Swiss banks ain't what they used to be. Cayman islands too.
- justin66 4y agoBaffling. The bank can't keep your money if they think it's somehow ill-gotten, and the police can. It's a world of difference.
- patrick451 4y agoThey only way a bank should send data to the government is if the government has warrant. The fact that this is not the case is a problem. Let's not normalize this overreach further.
- ta988 4y agoNot what happens in reality. A transfer of $10,000 on a US bank account will trigger an IRS flag for example.