> It's not a government system. Banks will typically ask for a payslip. I admit to misunderstanding but I fail to see how this diminishes my point. > You thin

> It's not a government system. Banks will typically ask for a payslip. I admit to misunderstanding but I fail to see how this diminishes my point. > You think banks are going to give you a loan if your income is from criminal activity? That's cute. That's exactly what I'm saying. The above approach systemically blackballs anyone who lacks a better avenue to a reliable income. That's a failure that exists in both the American system and the Danish one. My point is this: In the American one, it's a byproduct of AML law, which could easily be changed to allow banks to ignore small-time cases (with conditions, of course). In the Danish system, the blocker is inbuilt - it can't be regulated away without fundamental changes to the design of the system. Adding a "proceeds from criminal activity" box doesn't work great. Ask Al Capone. Petty criminals don't pose enough of a threat to society for it to be worthwhile to block them out of basic, low-risk financial services like checking accounts and debit-backed credit cards. Barring them from those services doesn't discourage the illegal activity. It does more to lock them into their current socioeconomic status.