> AML does work It really doesn't: https://content.11fs.com/article/aml-is-the-worlds-most-ineffective-policy-experiment https://content.11fs.com/article/aml-

> AML does work It really doesn't: https://content.11fs.com/article/aml-is-the-worlds-most-ineffective-policy-experiment https://content.11fs.com/article/aml-is-the-worlds-most-inef... > This week I had an opportunity to properly deep dive into this work by Ronald F Pol. It finds that AML policy has less than a 0.1% impact on criminal finances. Compliance costs exceed recovered illicit funds recovered more than 100x. Banks, taxpayers, and citizens are penalised more than criminals. Policymakers keep blaming banks and hitting them with massive fines hoping to fix the problem, but it doesn't. AML prosecutions happen, but that's mostly because it's easy to find otherwise-innocent people who run afoul of the rules, or as something to tack on when you're already prosecuting someone for something else. Not because they're doing any good against criminals who otherwise wouldn't be caught. Just think about it. If someone is being prosecuted for money laundering in addition to an underlying crime, they would still have been prosecuted for the underlying crime without it. If they're only being prosecuted for money laundering, we don't even know that there was an underlying crime, in which case why are we prosecuting someone engaging in no apparent harmful activity? > the economic destruction of an all-fraud economy Where does this assumption come from? Historically most monetary transactions occurred in anonymous cash. Was the result "economic destruction" or "an all-fraud economy"? The proposal isn't to legalize fraud, it's to legalize the digital equivalent of cash.