3 ms·
I agree with your first point, but I don't think OFAC is the problem here; civil asset forfeiture is what I was describing. In this case, it's not an obvious no
by tadfisher 4y ago
I agree with your first point, but I don't think OFAC is the problem here; civil asset forfeiture is what I was describing. In this case, it's not an obvious nor historical requirement that a charitable organization must perform AML/KYC on their donors; however, the use of Tornado gives an ambitious prosecutor the necessary pretext to seize the funds in a civil action.
- js4ever 4y agoSo seizing the money without any proof of it being illegal? How fair is it?
- snapplebobapple 4y agoIt's totally unfair, which is why it must be made completley illegal as something available for the government to do, but this is really hard to do because government is full of money grubbing authoritarians and the electorate isn't pissed enough about this generally yet to make it a bipartisan supported issue where if you support this you don't get elected (which tells us more about the reasoning ability of the electorate than anything). It's an utter travesty that your assets are guilty until proven innocent these days in the USA and that this is infecting other places such as Canada as well.