3 ms·
The absolute magnitude of crime it catches is completely irrelevant. The earlier poster is incorrect saying is useless because > It recovers 100x less than its
by margalabargala 3y ago
The absolute magnitude of crime it catches is completely irrelevant. The earlier poster is incorrect saying is useless because
> It recovers 100x less than its compliance cost.
The proportion of crime that it catches is of interest to criminals and is what will have the deterrence effect, but whether it catches 10% or 90% is difficult to know as a layperson.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoIt's not actually that difficult to know, you can look it up. It isn't 90% effective, or 10%, but rather 0.2% effective. The other major problem here is that what you're deterring isn't the underlying crime that generates the money but rather the activity that triggers AML scrutiny. So you have little hope of deterring the underlying crime, all you do is cause people to organize their finances in a different way. Which is hardly worth imposing significant costs on millions of innocent people.
- margalabargala 3y agoIt's "0.2% effective" by measuring in an arbitrary and frankly unrelated way. That figure comes from "what number do we get if we take the amount of illegal funds caught, and divide by the amount of money spent by other companies complying with the regulations?" I'm sure you'll agree that this doesn't actually relate in any way to the specific number discussed above, aside from sharing the adjective "effective" used as a descriptor. The cost of compliance to legitimate parties does not have any obvious mechanism to directly affect the deterrence effect.