> Anti-money laundering laws may not prevent organized crime. But organized crime massively benefit from their absence. Solutions don't need to be 100% effectiv

> Anti-money laundering laws may not prevent organized crime. But organized crime massively benefit from their absence. Solutions don't need to be 100% effective to be useful. Yes but there should be a cost-benefit analysis. The current system of low reporting thresholds across the board and filing SARs on anything that moves does not produce actionable intelligence 95% of the time. No one is against BSA recordkeeping requirements for instance. I am against a system that treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent (thousands of people have had Paypal or Coinbase decide to freeze their funds indefinitely for "compliance reasons") and incentivizes "derisking" left and right. See https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/account-closed-how-bank-de-risking-hurts-legitimate-customers-1439419093 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/account-closed-how-bank-de-... (or https://archive.ph/D3amw https://archive.ph/D3amw). UBO laws are a great example of poor cost-benefit analysis. Actual criminals will just get stolen identities or homeless people to put down as owners while the 99.9% of law abiding people have millions of unnecessary added compliance hours every year.