8 ms·

> These jurisdictions really just keep adding layers of obligatory professionals and it neither changes the reputation of the jurisdiction It depends. I used t

> These jurisdictions really just keep adding layers of obligatory professionals and it neither changes the reputation of the jurisdiction It depends. I used to live in Belgium and now in Luxembourg and both countries have been removed from an international gray list of countries refusing to share banking information (they do share now). Old article from 2009: https://www.politico.eu/article/luxembourg-and-belgium-removed-from-grey-list https://www.politico.eu/article/luxembourg-and-belgium-remov... There was a time where people would literally come to Luxembourg with duffelbags full of bank notes and nobody would ask anything. But these times are definitely gone. > I’m still of the predilection that states should just give up on trying to police money flows Having been directly hit by this and KYC/AML making my life miserable I fully agree with that. Some people have their entire bank account frozen, sometimes for months, because they make one wire transfer of a few thousands EUR to another country: happened to someone I know (who's an AML specialist, which is ironic) for buying a watch in Dubai and happened to someone else I know for... Paying for his wedding (which was taking place in another country than the one he was living in). His wedding nearly got cancelled due to zealots at the bank convinced they found an international drugs trafficker or something... The worst of the worst is that everybody at the bank is convinced they're some super important person, part of a global elite secret service or something, where nobody can talk. Worse than the mafia. And that they'll lose their job or go to jail if they ever mention to the client why their account is getting frozen. It's all pathetic really.

peanut-walrus 3y ago
You can and will quite literally go to jail if you tell the client why their account is getting frozen while it's a part of a money laundering or terrorism financing investigation.
- lmm 3y ago
  Land of the free huh. Seriously, it should not be legal to freeze people's assets without giving them the same right to defend themselves - which includes seeing and challenging the evidence against them - that they'd get in a criminal trial. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
spicymapotofu 3y ago
Compliance workers in the bank are, in fact, on the line to the tune of jail time, in some jurisdictions, and the fees for institutions found inadequate usually start with 'b'. Not that every zealot is right, but the penalties in their line are approximately as bad as your exaggerated examples.
theironhammer 3y ago
It was only because the USA realized Terrorists use these Secretive Bank channels too that there was a crack down. No interest before that.
csomar 3y ago
While cash is not practical today, Money Laundering is still happening. I'd say the current regulation does little to nothing to stop it. Think of the experiences you described in your comments. They almost always happen when you make/receive money from certain jurisdictions (third-world, not necessarily a money laundering location). The West, in the last few years, has become less competitive. This switched the money flow which was predominantly from third-world to west. Most of the money laundering happened in the Western countries in the past. (think dictators moving their monies to European capitals to buy real-estate). Now that the flow has flipped in favor of the third-world, the West has decided to "stop" the flow. The lower taxation rate in these countries makes this worse. The exception is the US. They weren't a favored location before but they figured they could pick up where Europe left off. And FATCA made it easier for them.

peanut-walrus 3y ago

You can and will quite literally go to jail if you tell the client why their account is getting frozen while it's a part of a money laundering or terrorism financing investigation.

lmm 3y ago
Land of the free huh. Seriously, it should not be legal to freeze people's assets without giving them the same right to defend themselves - which includes seeing and challenging the evidence against them - that they'd get in a criminal trial. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

spicymapotofu 3y ago

Compliance workers in the bank are, in fact, on the line to the tune of jail time, in some jurisdictions, and the fees for institutions found inadequate usually start with 'b'. Not that every zealot is right, but the penalties in their line are approximately as bad as your exaggerated examples.

theironhammer 3y ago

It was only because the USA realized Terrorists use these Secretive Bank channels too that there was a crack down. No interest before that.

csomar 3y ago

While cash is not practical today, Money Laundering is still happening. I'd say the current regulation does little to nothing to stop it. Think of the experiences you described in your comments. They almost always happen when you make/receive money from certain jurisdictions (third-world, not necessarily a money laundering location). The West, in the last few years, has become less competitive. This switched the money flow which was predominantly from third-world to west. Most of the money laundering happened in the Western countries in the past. (think dictators moving their monies to European capitals to buy real-estate). Now that the flow has flipped in favor of the third-world, the West has decided to "stop" the flow. The lower taxation rate in these countries makes this worse. The exception is the US. They weren't a favored location before but they figured they could pick up where Europe left off. And FATCA made it easier for them.