4 ms·

Ironic that the CIA showed other countries the basics of how to do this :/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikiped

by alx__ 4y ago

Ironic that the CIA showed other countries the basics of how to do this :/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...

joe_the_user 4y ago
The thing about the article is it talks about "it's hard to distinguish corruption and policy" in China. It seems like a large look at drug and money flows would say the same about the US, China and Mexico and look at the particular agencies in each nation where the corruption is concentrated.
- _jal 4y ago
  > It seems like a large look at drug and money flows would say the same about the US It is policy in the US. There are a number of simple policy changes that would make money laundering much harder for most. Start with anonymous corporation ownership. Or you could get serious and enforce already existing AML laws against large banks. Of course then a lot of people who actually matter would be in trouble, and more would have to pay taxes, and we can't have that, now can we?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > anonymous corporation ownership Who does this? Non-public or behind an attorney is very different from anonymous.
    - _jal 4y ago
      Lots of people. There is a legal difference, of course, between "truly anonymous" and merely effectively so. I am including situations like the designated trustee knows who the owner is, and if subpoenaed, will disclose that the owner is an Isle of Man corporation with a Panama address. Here is discussion about it for Delaware corporations, but my understanding is South Dakota is currently the most popular US state in which to incorporate for, uh, privacy reasons. https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/delaware-bills-mere-window-dressing-will-nothing-curb-abuse-anonymous-companies/ https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/delaware-bills-mere-wi...
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > is a legal difference, of course, between "truly anonymous" and merely effectively so Which is an important difference when it comes to AML. We don't have anonymous corporations in America. Computers have made it easier to create and track daisy chains of entities, which makes tracing beneficial ownership difficult. But that's a far cry from it being U.S. policy to encourage that chaining. > the designated trustee knows who the owner is, and if subpoenaed, will disclose that the owner is an Isle of Man corporation with a Panama address They would also disclose the signer, likely a lawyer and/or registrar, along with the method and contents of communications with them. This is tedious. But one can only do one or two hops through these methods before running out of (a) people who will keep your secret without (b) losing your chain of ownership and with it control of the underlying asset.
        _jal 4y ago
        Yes, if there's sufficient time, money and will, you can usually, eventually, run someone down in a particular case. In practice, someone has to want to do that. There's an awful lot of opaque money flow in entities like this, and a lot of them fly under the radar.
  - csomar 4y ago
    > Start with anonymous corporation ownership. Meaningless. And the government does certainly know that (and could care less). The EU wants transparency around that but mostly for tax purposes and bureaucracy. What matters is the cash-flow and transaction-flow. In this case, bank accounts, crypto transactions/exchanges, real-estate transfers, cash movement, etc...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by alx__ 4y ago

joe_the_user 4y ago

The thing about the article is it talks about "it's hard to distinguish corruption and policy" in China. It seems like a large look at drug and money flows would say the same about the US, China and Mexico and look at the particular agencies in each nation where the corruption is concentrated.

_jal 4y ago
> It seems like a large look at drug and money flows would say the same about the US It is policy in the US. There are a number of simple policy changes that would make money laundering much harder for most. Start with anonymous corporation ownership. Or you could get serious and enforce already existing AML laws against large banks. Of course then a lot of people who actually matter would be in trouble, and more would have to pay taxes, and we can't have that, now can we?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > anonymous corporation ownership Who does this? Non-public or behind an attorney is very different from anonymous.
  - _jal 4y ago
    Lots of people. There is a legal difference, of course, between "truly anonymous" and merely effectively so. I am including situations like the designated trustee knows who the owner is, and if subpoenaed, will disclose that the owner is an Isle of Man corporation with a Panama address. Here is discussion about it for Delaware corporations, but my understanding is South Dakota is currently the most popular US state in which to incorporate for, uh, privacy reasons. https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/delaware-bills-mere-window-dressing-will-nothing-curb-abuse-anonymous-companies/ https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/delaware-bills-mere-wi...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > is a legal difference, of course, between "truly anonymous" and merely effectively so Which is an important difference when it comes to AML. We don't have anonymous corporations in America. Computers have made it easier to create and track daisy chains of entities, which makes tracing beneficial ownership difficult. But that's a far cry from it being U.S. policy to encourage that chaining. > the designated trustee knows who the owner is, and if subpoenaed, will disclose that the owner is an Isle of Man corporation with a Panama address They would also disclose the signer, likely a lawyer and/or registrar, along with the method and contents of communications with them. This is tedious. But one can only do one or two hops through these methods before running out of (a) people who will keep your secret without (b) losing your chain of ownership and with it control of the underlying asset.
      - _jal 4y ago
        Yes, if there's sufficient time, money and will, you can usually, eventually, run someone down in a particular case. In practice, someone has to want to do that. There's an awful lot of opaque money flow in entities like this, and a lot of them fly under the radar.
- csomar 4y ago
  > Start with anonymous corporation ownership. Meaningless. And the government does certainly know that (and could care less). The EU wants transparency around that but mostly for tax purposes and bureaucracy. What matters is the cash-flow and transaction-flow. In this case, bank accounts, crypto transactions/exchanges, real-estate transfers, cash movement, etc...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]