The question you're posing assumes an argument the comment you're responding to doesn't make. It's not whether "preventing fraud, money laundering or terrorism

The question you're posing assumes an argument the comment you're responding to doesn't make. It's not whether "preventing fraud, money laundering or terrorism funding" makes things better, it's whether the processes put in place are effective towards combating those things. It would be upsetting to know a $2b pipeline for catching these things were only able to detect $2m worth of illicit funds for example. Your comment is also assuming funds would only be seized for a shared definition of "fraud, money laundering or terrorism" when that is not always the case. Preventing "terrorism" by placing embargoes on all individuals of disagreeable governments would seem like an overreach for many individuals with family overseas.