3 ms·
I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without compl
by dmatech 4y ago
I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straightforward.
- 300bps 4y agoI must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. So there are two possibilities. 1. You think the government shouldn't be allowed to track money laundering 2. You have a suggestion on improving money laundering tracking without anti-structuring laws If you believe the government has a legitimate vested interest in stopping money laundering and you set a $10,000 limit before something must be reported, the reporting requirement might as well not exist if someone can deposit $9999.99 literally 100 times per day without a report being generated. So what would your suggestion be on how to track money laundering? Or do you just think that's none of the government's business?
- pyuser583 4y agoRequiring actual criminal proceeds. Simply wanting to avoid government attention should not be illegal. Covering up a crime should be.
- jimmydorry 4y agoThe answer isn't to then set the $10,000 limit and add an opaque criteria of "but the limit doesn't matter if we look at your transactions and think you are hiding something". Something more reasonable may be: a limit of $10,000 per month (or any time frame) before mandatory reporting. That of course means dropping the hand wavy exception completely.