3 ms·

As long as you have a non-signatory among otherwise first world nations (and there's always a handful on any treaty) there absolutely will be a legal way that y

by varjag 3y ago

As long as you have a non-signatory among otherwise first world nations (and there's always a handful on any treaty) there absolutely will be a legal way that you can't do much about.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there absolutely will be a legal way that you can't do much about No, that’s what the sanctions threat is for. It may be possible. But now you’re in the company of money launderers and terrorism financiers. To be clear, I don’t think this is necessary. But it’s naïve to imagine it’s beyond D.C.’s capacity.
- bombcar 3y ago
  DC doesn't go after these "security consulting firms located in non-signatory states" just precisely because they want to be able to use them if the need arises.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > DC doesn't go after these "security consulting firms located in non-signatory states" just precisely because they want to be able to use them You are vastly overestimating the federal government’s coherence and coördination. Yes, we use black hats. Yes, we still jail and sanction them.
    - bostik 3y ago
      Which is straight out of Macchiavelli's playbook. The first thing you do after conquering the throne is to bundle up all your pending atrocities in one and eliminate competition. The second thing you do is slaughter the mercenaries you had hired to win your war of ascension. No reason to leave them around and let the next usurper hire them to dethrone you.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        In practice, it typically happens across administrations, i.e. the effect is accidental. (We forget what an asset having a fresh executive every decade makes.)
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    IIRC feds have gone against companies using some third-party consultants to pay a ransom that eventually went to a entity on US sanctions list like Iran or North Korea. Or at least they have loudly threatened to do so. Also, there have been some enforcement actions on intermediaries for facilitating such payments - e.g. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471
- varjag 3y ago
  It took what, over two decades to convince Switzerland and Austria to get on board for (part of) money laundering treaties? And ransom(ware) is not anywhere as pressing.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > took what, over two decades to convince Switzerland and Austria to get on board for (part of) money laundering treaties Yet they still complied with U.S. sanctions. (Or were arrested abroad for defying them.) You seem to misunderstand that sanctions are not a treaty obligation. If your country deals with a sanctioned entity, it gets sanctioned as well. That enforces compliance indirectly. America and and does unilaterally extend sanctions.
    - varjag 3y ago
      Thanks, it's great to know that money laundering is a solved problem.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > it's great to know that money laundering is a solved problem We don’t sanction money launderers generally. And no, terrorism finance isn’t a solved problem either. Hence why I said one would need to keep company with that category of people were such a measure enacted. But again, your K&R retiree cum schoolteacher was describing a political constraint. Not a functional one.

by varjag 3y ago

As long as you have a non-signatory among otherwise first world nations (and there's always a handful on any treaty) there absolutely will be a legal way that you can't do much about.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> there absolutely will be a legal way that you can't do much about No, that’s what the sanctions threat is for. It may be possible. But now you’re in the company of money launderers and terrorism financiers. To be clear, I don’t think this is necessary. But it’s naïve to imagine it’s beyond D.C.’s capacity.

bombcar 3y ago
DC doesn't go after these "security consulting firms located in non-signatory states" just precisely because they want to be able to use them if the need arises.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > DC doesn't go after these "security consulting firms located in non-signatory states" just precisely because they want to be able to use them You are vastly overestimating the federal government’s coherence and coördination. Yes, we use black hats. Yes, we still jail and sanction them.
  - bostik 3y ago
    Which is straight out of Macchiavelli's playbook. The first thing you do after conquering the throne is to bundle up all your pending atrocities in one and eliminate competition. The second thing you do is slaughter the mercenaries you had hired to win your war of ascension. No reason to leave them around and let the next usurper hire them to dethrone you.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      In practice, it typically happens across administrations, i.e. the effect is accidental. (We forget what an asset having a fresh executive every decade makes.)
- PeterisP 3y ago
  IIRC feds have gone against companies using some third-party consultants to pay a ransom that eventually went to a entity on US sanctions list like Iran or North Korea. Or at least they have loudly threatened to do so. Also, there have been some enforcement actions on intermediaries for facilitating such payments - e.g. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0471
varjag 3y ago
It took what, over two decades to convince Switzerland and Austria to get on board for (part of) money laundering treaties? And ransom(ware) is not anywhere as pressing.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > took what, over two decades to convince Switzerland and Austria to get on board for (part of) money laundering treaties Yet they still complied with U.S. sanctions. (Or were arrested abroad for defying them.) You seem to misunderstand that sanctions are not a treaty obligation. If your country deals with a sanctioned entity, it gets sanctioned as well. That enforces compliance indirectly. America and and does unilaterally extend sanctions.
  - varjag 3y ago
    Thanks, it's great to know that money laundering is a solved problem.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it's great to know that money laundering is a solved problem We don’t sanction money launderers generally. And no, terrorism finance isn’t a solved problem either. Hence why I said one would need to keep company with that category of people were such a measure enacted. But again, your K&R retiree cum schoolteacher was describing a political constraint. Not a functional one.