3 ms·

Whats more amusing is that the DOJ and FinCEN think their KYC and anti money laundering regime works simply because people with sanctioned names don't have bank

Whats more amusing is that the DOJ and FinCEN think their KYC and anti money laundering regime works simply because people with sanctioned names don't have bank accounts here…. in their name They seem to completely not notice that every individual and business would never know if another bank account existed in their name if it wasnt used in a different kind of crime or overdrawn forever. there are plenty of people that just want access and dont do anything bad with it, aside frok the paradoxical standard of having access or impersonation to be bad same is true of credit, although the original identity can see the extra credit line added, sometimes the phantom is a better steward of your credit than you are. Like “wow mixed lines of credit, paid on time! thanks undocumented person!”

xwolfi 3y ago
You mis-construct law enforcement / crime prevention. First, it's never about solving all crimes committed by "bad people", the first priority is to show a big red lock everywhere sensitive so that your nice grandma doesn't go "oh well, the door is open and nobody's looking, might as well go see what's in there". Opportunity is the biggest driver of crime in humans, and it would be unmanageable not to have those sanction regimes in place, just as if nobody had door locks. Second, they need to make it illegal FIRST, or there would be no sanction evasion crime: if they don't act all naive and say "you cannot have an account here at all", then having an account would be fine... now the criminals need to cheat and lie, which they can be charged for. Finally: not all crime will ever be punished and there's definitely a cost calculation: do we want to take fingerprints of all clients in banks to match them to a central id card database, to end up with criminals infiltrating the fingerprinting system anyway and everyone else having to do those dumb fingerprint checks for nothing ? Better keep it simple while the criming stays manageable.

xwolfi 3y ago

You mis-construct law enforcement / crime prevention. First, it's never about solving all crimes committed by "bad people", the first priority is to show a big red lock everywhere sensitive so that your nice grandma doesn't go "oh well, the door is open and nobody's looking, might as well go see what's in there". Opportunity is the biggest driver of crime in humans, and it would be unmanageable not to have those sanction regimes in place, just as if nobody had door locks. Second, they need to make it illegal FIRST, or there would be no sanction evasion crime: if they don't act all naive and say "you cannot have an account here at all", then having an account would be fine... now the criminals need to cheat and lie, which they can be charged for. Finally: not all crime will ever be punished and there's definitely a cost calculation: do we want to take fingerprints of all clients in banks to match them to a central id card database, to end up with criminals infiltrating the fingerprinting system anyway and everyone else having to do those dumb fingerprint checks for nothing ? Better keep it simple while the criming stays manageable.