5 ms·

There is still an element of truth. If you don't provide KYC for a bank account there is now a crime if it is knowingly allowed. You could go offshore but now

There is still an element of truth. If you don't provide KYC for a bank account there is now a crime if it is knowingly allowed. You could go offshore but now you need to report the account. You could form an anonymous LLC but law recently changed an now must report UBO to fincen. You could store cash/gold in an anonymous safe deposit, but FBI raid and steal this. You cant fly with large cash because again feds steal it. You can't carry it out the country in large without reporting it. Crypto, same story, KYC at the exits and P2P offramp actors getting treated as 'unlicensed money transmitter' etc which again triggers KYC. Quickly you realize it's about shutting off all the exits of privacy, not money laundering which only has increased cost consolidating power to more dangerous organizations.

earnesti 2y ago
Not providing KYC is definitely not a crime. It happens all the time. What usually happens is that the bank just terminates the account, after a while.
- beaglessss 2y ago
  I suspect a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile Non sequitur. Banks generally have to have KYC to do business, though there are famous exceptions in history. There is no jurisdiction I know of in which as a customer not providing KYC is itself a crime.
    - beaglessss 2y ago
      The customer isnt charged, it is the bank/entity or persons there. Not legal advice but failure if AML and not collecting identifying information is charged under 31 USC 5322 under indictment I'm reading. The law here notes even some CFRs are criminally binding, the CFRs explicitly require certain identification.
- johngladtj 2y ago
  You're so close, but so far. What happens if the banks don't close it?
  - earnesti 2y ago
    Later they might get a fine, which is just the cost of doing business for them.
    - beaglessss 2y ago
      Unless someone dislikes them, in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC (even though we all know sanctioned entities operate on white market using dark identity, so regular banks guilty too).
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC Example? Every one I can think of involved the bank not doing KYC, criminals taking advantage of it, and evidence at least some people at the bank knew what was happening. (Usually because authorities told the bank they were doing business with criminals and the bank responded by shuffling things around so they could continue doing that business.)
        beaglessss 2y ago
        Banks are always doing business with criminals and sanctioned entities and they know that, although not always when and where. The difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it. If the bank just gives each person a random number as their only identifier like the old swiss accounts, then they'll be warned sanctioned entities are using it and ultimately prosecuted when they fail to KYC (i.e. similar but but identical to CZ).
ywvcbk 2y ago
Is most of that an issue if you declare your income and pay any relevant taxes? Outside of some unnecessary annoyances it generally wouldn’t be too complicated to move your money around. Otherwise, what are you expecting? Direct taxation isn’t really compatible with ‘financial privacy’ and never was.
- beaglessss 2y ago
  My response is civil rights should drive the tax man's behavior and not the other way around. I will accept a loss in efficiency of taxation.
- vladimirralev 2y ago
  It depends. Some banks will ask for root origin of funds. Say you earned some money 20 years ago, invested them with various brokers into stocks all over the world, real estate etc. And then cashed a large sum into your account. If any one of those transactions is flagged they will require you to go back 20 years and collect those invoices that you earned and then you have to collect every transaction from the brokers, this may involve foreign jurisdictions where record keeping and querying is not available from 20 years ago. So you will fail the disclosure and the bank will flag you in the shared blacklist DBs, they close your accounts and you are out of the system. This is happening enmasse to people who invested in and cashed out of real estate abroad(asia/africa/sa) some time ago. I imagine it's the same with foreign stock markets. And you never know what will be required 20 years in the future, thus most financial advisors discourage "moving money around". They even have a whitelist of brokers, stocks and jurisdictions, anything outside that is uninvestable for normal people just because of KYC/AML paperwork requirements.

earnesti 2y ago

Not providing KYC is definitely not a crime. It happens all the time. What usually happens is that the bank just terminates the account, after a while.

beaglessss 2y ago
I suspect a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile Non sequitur. Banks generally have to have KYC to do business, though there are famous exceptions in history. There is no jurisdiction I know of in which as a customer not providing KYC is itself a crime.
  - beaglessss 2y ago
    The customer isnt charged, it is the bank/entity or persons there. Not legal advice but failure if AML and not collecting identifying information is charged under 31 USC 5322 under indictment I'm reading. The law here notes even some CFRs are criminally binding, the CFRs explicitly require certain identification.
johngladtj 2y ago
You're so close, but so far. What happens if the banks don't close it?
- earnesti 2y ago
  Later they might get a fine, which is just the cost of doing business for them.
  - beaglessss 2y ago
    Unless someone dislikes them, in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC (even though we all know sanctioned entities operate on white market using dark identity, so regular banks guilty too).
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC Example? Every one I can think of involved the bank not doing KYC, criminals taking advantage of it, and evidence at least some people at the bank knew what was happening. (Usually because authorities told the bank they were doing business with criminals and the bank responded by shuffling things around so they could continue doing that business.)
      - beaglessss 2y ago
        Banks are always doing business with criminals and sanctioned entities and they know that, although not always when and where. The difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it. If the bank just gives each person a random number as their only identifier like the old swiss accounts, then they'll be warned sanctioned entities are using it and ultimately prosecuted when they fail to KYC (i.e. similar but but identical to CZ).

ywvcbk 2y ago

Is most of that an issue if you declare your income and pay any relevant taxes? Outside of some unnecessary annoyances it generally wouldn’t be too complicated to move your money around. Otherwise, what are you expecting? Direct taxation isn’t really compatible with ‘financial privacy’ and never was.

beaglessss 2y ago
My response is civil rights should drive the tax man's behavior and not the other way around. I will accept a loss in efficiency of taxation.
vladimirralev 2y ago
It depends. Some banks will ask for root origin of funds. Say you earned some money 20 years ago, invested them with various brokers into stocks all over the world, real estate etc. And then cashed a large sum into your account. If any one of those transactions is flagged they will require you to go back 20 years and collect those invoices that you earned and then you have to collect every transaction from the brokers, this may involve foreign jurisdictions where record keeping and querying is not available from 20 years ago. So you will fail the disclosure and the bank will flag you in the shared blacklist DBs, they close your accounts and you are out of the system. This is happening enmasse to people who invested in and cashed out of real estate abroad(asia/africa/sa) some time ago. I imagine it's the same with foreign stock markets. And you never know what will be required 20 years in the future, thus most financial advisors discourage "moving money around". They even have a whitelist of brokers, stocks and jurisdictions, anything outside that is uninvestable for normal people just because of KYC/AML paperwork requirements.