3 ms·

I think the intent is to keep the bad actors from knowing exactly how they were nabbed so they don't know what to do differently the next time around. I would

I think the intent is to keep the bad actors from knowing exactly how they were nabbed so they don't know what to do differently the next time around. I would be amazed if they aren't punishing a lot more innocents than guilty, though. These days the government loves to do an end-run around the 5th amendment--innocent until proven guilty should apply to all government or government-directed actions (I consider the bank closing your account because you did something the government considers suspicious to be a government action), but we have been using it for toilet paper for quite a while now.

seunosewa 4y ago
It's simply a wrong way to treat customers. Bad laws cause so much pain.
from 4y ago
Article says 4% of SARs lead to law enforcement followup (and of those how many actually result in a conviction? Probably not even a third of that). So 95%+ of them are useless! The current system has terrible incentives because there are massive penalties for not filing but no penalty for useless filings. So they just file and file and file...
- deadly_syn 4y ago
  I mainly agree with you the system is abused flagrantly, on the other hand playing devils advocate potentially the low amount of follow up is because shutting an account has 0 risk to life or limb of anyone involved. If they shut down the shared bank account being used to hold all the money to a (poorly run albeit) drug empire you just put that org significantly in the hole, and the person doing the dirty work is sipping coffee in their pajamas completely ignorant to the outcome of their perscribed click.
dalyons 4y ago
Yeah that’s what I was trying to say: > It doesn't seem worth it to me - if you are actually doing BadThings and your account gets closed, i'm sure you know why. Hiding the reason is such a woefully small inconvenience for actually bad actors. But the 95% of regular folk that get caught up in it can go to hell I guess?

seunosewa 4y ago

It's simply a wrong way to treat customers. Bad laws cause so much pain.

from 4y ago

Article says 4% of SARs lead to law enforcement followup (and of those how many actually result in a conviction? Probably not even a third of that). So 95%+ of them are useless! The current system has terrible incentives because there are massive penalties for not filing but no penalty for useless filings. So they just file and file and file...

deadly_syn 4y ago
I mainly agree with you the system is abused flagrantly, on the other hand playing devils advocate potentially the low amount of follow up is because shutting an account has 0 risk to life or limb of anyone involved. If they shut down the shared bank account being used to hold all the money to a (poorly run albeit) drug empire you just put that org significantly in the hole, and the person doing the dirty work is sipping coffee in their pajamas completely ignorant to the outcome of their perscribed click.

dalyons 4y ago

Yeah that’s what I was trying to say: > It doesn't seem worth it to me - if you are actually doing BadThings and your account gets closed, i'm sure you know why. Hiding the reason is such a woefully small inconvenience for actually bad actors. But the 95% of regular folk that get caught up in it can go to hell I guess?