4 ms·

This is just factually untrue. AML policies unjustly affect millions of Americans. At US Bank, you can’t deposit cash without an ID which is standard post 2018

This is just factually untrue. AML policies unjustly affect millions of Americans. At US Bank, you can’t deposit cash without an ID which is standard post 2018 or so. Yet go to a US Bank in a low income area, deposit $100 in a family member’s account and they will ask for ID, social security number and your job. US Bank has been involved in multiple money laundering scandals leading to deferred criminal prosecution. Many friends have times where they can’t withdraw their own cash, have had accounts closed, have been falsely reported for fraud without any recourse etc etc. Also because financial fraud and identity theft is rarely prosecuted, regular Americans are bombarded with friction and hassle to transact. People outside normal banking use Chime or prepaid bank cards, which promptly get banned from being used in a wide variety of businesses. AML policies and the Bank Secrecy Act is a violation of the 4th Amendment. The BSA (a misnomer) has expanded in scope since the 70s and as money has inflated. It’s went from an adjusted $70,000+ to $600 today (or $85 in 1970s dollars). And it seems the Supreme Court is going to act on the BSA sometime in the next year. It is a crime against the individual, a violation of civil rights and indefensible. It is purely motivated by tax enforcement and controlling the population. It does not prevent or identify crime. There is an estimated trillion+ of trade based money laundering every year.

pjkundert 4y ago
I'm always gobsmacked at the level of ... jawdropping "Let them eat cake!" self-delusion displayed by some wealthy people. "This hasn't affected me, so it mustn't affect anyone!" The grinding day-to-day slogging, through the mud of irrelevant and useless regulatory burden experienced by the "lesser" classes of civilization (and anyone actually trying to run a small business) is just astonishing. Basically, many people just "stop". They can't navigate it, and know they'll never defeat it. So they just cease to try.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I thought their response was sarcasm. Surely no one would seriously think it is reasonable to be questioned over the phone over $10k which is what, enough to cover a month of expenses for an upper middle class family in Manhattan or San Francisco? As for a SAR, lmao. It's illegal for them to tell you if you triggered it, how on earth would you know?
btilly 4y ago
While I appreciate the problems that you're describing, I'm dubious that it violates the 4th amendment. In particular look at the Private Search Exemption. Which says that the 4th amendment does NOT apply to searches done by private parties. And if a private party has voluntarily done the search and reported it to the government, the government may redo the search without a warrant, but can't exceed what the private party said. This applies here because both KYC and AML procedures are set up and carried out by private banks. Which makes it a private search, that fits squarely in the exemption. In turn this begs the question of whether the government can encourage through intentionally vague regulation behavior that they cannot directly ask for. But given the courts we have, I suspect they will avoid answering this question. Furthermore it is hardly the worst violation of the 4th that is common. I'm personally most incensed about civil forfeiture. Through the workaround of suing your stuff instead of you, all Constitutional protections are voided. The result is essentially legalized robbery by the government, carried out by the very law enforcement departments that directly profit from the proceeds. Given that the courts have repeatedly OKed this, why would you expect them to object to KYC and AML?
- notch898a 4y ago
  It's not really a private or voluntary search when it's imposed by government. Otherwise I could just make a law saying everybody who walks down X private road has to get searched by private security or turn around, obviously that won't work. The private road owner might never wanted to do it, they're only doing because the gun of the government man is at their head. It is a public search carried with the dirty work portion of the search done by private entities directed by the state.
  - btilly 4y ago
    But the government DIDN'T impose it. Whatever the bank's procedures may be, the regulator can say with a straight face, "We didn't tell them to implement those procedures, and we didn't tell them to take those actions. That was their decision." And, unbelievable as it may seem, the government won't be exactly wrong either.
wpietri 4y ago
> This is just factually untrue. AML policies unjustly affect millions of Americans. If it's that clearly untrue, presumably you can document this? And I'll note that even if you can, it doesn't necessarily contradict what you're replying to, which was, "This will affect the typical user of the financial system precisely zero times during their lives." With 330 million residents, millions of people could have KYC/AML problems and patio11 still could be right. I've never had a problem like that, and have only heard one person ever mention it. And he was an Australian trying to open a US bank account to get around certain Australian import taxes, so I suspect he was somebody who should have been having problems.
from 4y ago
I agree with your broader point but I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court case is about a technicality involving foreign bank account reporting, basically whether a failure to file that you had 5 foreign bank accounts is 5 counts or 1 count of FBAR violations. Unless there’s another pending case I haven’t heard of?

pjkundert 4y ago

I'm always gobsmacked at the level of ... jawdropping "Let them eat cake!" self-delusion displayed by some wealthy people. "This hasn't affected me, so it mustn't affect anyone!" The grinding day-to-day slogging, through the mud of irrelevant and useless regulatory burden experienced by the "lesser" classes of civilization (and anyone actually trying to run a small business) is just astonishing. Basically, many people just "stop". They can't navigate it, and know they'll never defeat it. So they just cease to try.

notch898a 4y ago
I thought their response was sarcasm. Surely no one would seriously think it is reasonable to be questioned over the phone over $10k which is what, enough to cover a month of expenses for an upper middle class family in Manhattan or San Francisco? As for a SAR, lmao. It's illegal for them to tell you if you triggered it, how on earth would you know?

btilly 4y ago

While I appreciate the problems that you're describing, I'm dubious that it violates the 4th amendment. In particular look at the Private Search Exemption. Which says that the 4th amendment does NOT apply to searches done by private parties. And if a private party has voluntarily done the search and reported it to the government, the government may redo the search without a warrant, but can't exceed what the private party said. This applies here because both KYC and AML procedures are set up and carried out by private banks. Which makes it a private search, that fits squarely in the exemption. In turn this begs the question of whether the government can encourage through intentionally vague regulation behavior that they cannot directly ask for. But given the courts we have, I suspect they will avoid answering this question. Furthermore it is hardly the worst violation of the 4th that is common. I'm personally most incensed about civil forfeiture. Through the workaround of suing your stuff instead of you, all Constitutional protections are voided. The result is essentially legalized robbery by the government, carried out by the very law enforcement departments that directly profit from the proceeds. Given that the courts have repeatedly OKed this, why would you expect them to object to KYC and AML?

notch898a 4y ago
It's not really a private or voluntary search when it's imposed by government. Otherwise I could just make a law saying everybody who walks down X private road has to get searched by private security or turn around, obviously that won't work. The private road owner might never wanted to do it, they're only doing because the gun of the government man is at their head. It is a public search carried with the dirty work portion of the search done by private entities directed by the state.
- btilly 4y ago
  But the government DIDN'T impose it. Whatever the bank's procedures may be, the regulator can say with a straight face, "We didn't tell them to implement those procedures, and we didn't tell them to take those actions. That was their decision." And, unbelievable as it may seem, the government won't be exactly wrong either.

wpietri 4y ago

> This is just factually untrue. AML policies unjustly affect millions of Americans. If it's that clearly untrue, presumably you can document this? And I'll note that even if you can, it doesn't necessarily contradict what you're replying to, which was, "This will affect the typical user of the financial system precisely zero times during their lives." With 330 million residents, millions of people could have KYC/AML problems and patio11 still could be right. I've never had a problem like that, and have only heard one person ever mention it. And he was an Australian trying to open a US bank account to get around certain Australian import taxes, so I suspect he was somebody who should have been having problems.

from 4y ago

I agree with your broader point but I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court case is about a technicality involving foreign bank account reporting, basically whether a failure to file that you had 5 foreign bank accounts is 5 counts or 1 count of FBAR violations. Unless there’s another pending case I haven’t heard of?