3 ms·

I'll jump in with so what, banks are doing it too. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hb

I'll jump in with so what, banks are doing it too. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n... Moving a million dollars by wiring it from your HSBC account is actually much easier than doing it with crypto. edit: and in the HSBC case the CEO didn't even lose his job!

infecto 3y ago
Much easier, maybe? But also much easier to track. And at least to some larger degree banks follow KYC.
- bordercases 3y ago
  > But also much easier to track Why is this true?
  - infecto 3y ago
    Banks in the US must follow kyc and other forms of reporting.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  *Much easier to stop, much harder to track. A bank doesn't have a publicly auditable ledger the way crypto does, it can only be traced with the assent of the bank and their policies vary. The distinction matters.
  - infecto 3y ago
    Yes because we see so much value from a public auditable log. It’s much easier to send crypto to a mixer and conceal origin/destination and much easier for the average Joe to do it.
    - omarfarooq 3y ago
      The very origin of funds being from a mixer taints it.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
I think these groups would be doing it with banks (like they did before?) instead of crypto if banks were much easier.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  You imply they migrated to use crypto and stopped using traditional banking. No evidence that it is the case. Some criminals may have easier access to crypto facilities than banks hence activity, or cost is lower that way for the initiated, yes. It doesn't mean volumes of teinted activities is anywhere as big via crypto than it is via fiat. Common sense could take a guess, but there can't be much certainty as illegal activities happen aren't made in plain sight in either route.

infecto 3y ago

Much easier, maybe? But also much easier to track. And at least to some larger degree banks follow KYC.

bordercases 3y ago
> But also much easier to track Why is this true?
- infecto 3y ago
  Banks in the US must follow kyc and other forms of reporting.
suoduandao3 3y ago
*Much easier to stop, much harder to track. A bank doesn't have a publicly auditable ledger the way crypto does, it can only be traced with the assent of the bank and their policies vary. The distinction matters.
- infecto 3y ago
  Yes because we see so much value from a public auditable log. It’s much easier to send crypto to a mixer and conceal origin/destination and much easier for the average Joe to do it.
  - omarfarooq 3y ago
    The very origin of funds being from a mixer taints it.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

I think these groups would be doing it with banks (like they did before?) instead of crypto if banks were much easier.

hirako2000 3y ago
You imply they migrated to use crypto and stopped using traditional banking. No evidence that it is the case. Some criminals may have easier access to crypto facilities than banks hence activity, or cost is lower that way for the initiated, yes. It doesn't mean volumes of teinted activities is anywhere as big via crypto than it is via fiat. Common sense could take a guess, but there can't be much certainty as illegal activities happen aren't made in plain sight in either route.