3 ms·

>Terrorism, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, organised crime etc All these things still exist in spite of AML laws and there's no evidence that AML laws mean

>Terrorism, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, organised crime etc All these things still exist in spite of AML laws and there's no evidence that AML laws meaningfully reduce the amount of them occurring.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
As the article says, it makes these activities more expensive.
threeseed 3y ago
It is ridiculous to assume that any law would completely eliminate crime. But it is a fact that those crimes depend on money laundering in order to extract proceeds. And it is a fact that AML laws help law enforcement to identify the financial flows linked to money laundering.
mywacaday 3y ago
The other big one is monitoring PEPs (Politically exposed Persons) for unusual activity. That list will include all your politicians their immediate family and known associates all the way down to local community councillors and representatives. That list may also anyone ever convicted of any crime or mentioned on a news website. It's been a long time since I was involved but there was a competition between list providers to have the biggest list.
Rastonbury 3y ago
That fact that they still happen isn't evidence that efforts to reduce it are ineffective. Most criminal orgs are running businesses, increasing the costs of doing businesses via enforcement or AML. On the margin, increased costs are passed to consumers which would reduce drug use. Cocaine is cheaper in Europe than in the US despite the US being a lot closer to the source, much of it due to the costs due to enforcement/AML. That's one of the points of the article, do you think drug consumption would be the same in Holland if the drugs weren't 15% more expensive? The lens through which to look at is what level of enforcement/AML do we need to reduces societal harm cost effectively. Because you can't track every object that enters or every dollar that leaves. So the question is more whether reducing the harms of drug consumption that amount is worth the impact on legitimate business. Then again the merits AML is that it hits most organized crime and costs a lot less than specific enforcement to stop trafficking and distribution. Now with fentanyl, you can't reasonable prevent trafficking at any cost because 5 tonnes can supply the entire USA, so you have to turn other the screws

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

As the article says, it makes these activities more expensive.

threeseed 3y ago

It is ridiculous to assume that any law would completely eliminate crime. But it is a fact that those crimes depend on money laundering in order to extract proceeds. And it is a fact that AML laws help law enforcement to identify the financial flows linked to money laundering.

mywacaday 3y ago

The other big one is monitoring PEPs (Politically exposed Persons) for unusual activity. That list will include all your politicians their immediate family and known associates all the way down to local community councillors and representatives. That list may also anyone ever convicted of any crime or mentioned on a news website. It's been a long time since I was involved but there was a competition between list providers to have the biggest list.

Rastonbury 3y ago

That fact that they still happen isn't evidence that efforts to reduce it are ineffective. Most criminal orgs are running businesses, increasing the costs of doing businesses via enforcement or AML. On the margin, increased costs are passed to consumers which would reduce drug use. Cocaine is cheaper in Europe than in the US despite the US being a lot closer to the source, much of it due to the costs due to enforcement/AML. That's one of the points of the article, do you think drug consumption would be the same in Holland if the drugs weren't 15% more expensive? The lens through which to look at is what level of enforcement/AML do we need to reduces societal harm cost effectively. Because you can't track every object that enters or every dollar that leaves. So the question is more whether reducing the harms of drug consumption that amount is worth the impact on legitimate business. Then again the merits AML is that it hits most organized crime and costs a lot less than specific enforcement to stop trafficking and distribution. Now with fentanyl, you can't reasonable prevent trafficking at any cost because 5 tonnes can supply the entire USA, so you have to turn other the screws