5 ms·

Almost all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC or reporting so the magic is the very act of privacy makes it illeg

Almost all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC or reporting so the magic is the very act of privacy makes it illegal.

dataflow 2y ago
It sounds like you're mixing up a bunch of things. To be clear: do you have a single example of a person who was convicted of the crime of money laundering despite it being proven in court that the underlying activity wasn't illegal?
- beaglessss 2y ago
  In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. I very much understand that, but you missed my point with that constraint: the point was that if your objection is that legal underlying activity can constitute money laundering, then to prove your objection you need to show an example of provably legal underlying activity. On the other hand, if your complaint is that innocent-before-proven-guilty isn't being upheld by courts, that's a fine complaint, but an entirely separate one from money laundering. > What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering. In other words he did conceal illegal activity. Hence my point.
    - beaglessss 2y ago
      Every single bank and person conceals illegal activity by your final sentence. You probably have sold something for cash bought by a drug dealer and unknowingly laundered drug money. The point here is that an unwitting actor is somehow guilty if they did not do KYC. By your standard basically every gas station near the border is a money launderer, since they know damn well much of the cash they take and transmit is drug and cartel money. And that's the genius of this line of reasoning. There is nary a dollar in circulation that hasnt been used in crime.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts. I wasn't trying to make a case for what money laundering is, only what (as I understand it) it definitely isn't. The example you cite clearly covered up underlying criminal activity, whereas the claim was that you can be guilty of money laundering without any illegal underlying crime. Hence it fails to support the premise. That is all.
        beaglessss 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dataflow 2y ago
        > No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering. How did I move to money laundering? Are we reading the same thread? The comment I initially replied to specifically said, "Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering"? > you were being duplicitous. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience. It's quite the opposite, but your personal swipes are pretty uncalled for, so I won't continue.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC Not at all. I have authorised large wires without providing KYC or collecting KYC from the other party. My bank knows who I am. And I colloquially know the person I'm sending money to. But I haven't e.g. run them through OFAC.
- beaglessss 2y ago
  Your counterparty was almost certainly KYCd if the receiving bank deals in USD or receive from a bank in us jurisdiction.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    I've wired non-USD from my U.S. bank and wired U.S. dollars overseas. I presume their bank is doing KYC. But I don't know. You claimed "all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC." That's simply untrue. It's advisable to ensure someone is doing their KYC. But not necessary.
    - beaglessss 2y ago
      Yes if you cutoff the first word it becomes untrue, how ridiculously disinguine. Here's an exercise, look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there. A lot of this compliance is driven through FATF actions that drive any country that wants access to anyone touching dollars or us banks to comply.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there So you've moved the goalpost from all large transactions to transactions with explicitly sanctioned (EDIT: listed) entities.
        2y ago

Almost all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC or reporting so the magic is the very act of privacy makes it illegal.

dataflow 2y ago

It sounds like you're mixing up a bunch of things. To be clear: do you have a single example of a person who was convicted of the crime of money laundering despite it being proven in court that the underlying activity wasn't illegal?

beaglessss 2y ago
In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. I very much understand that, but you missed my point with that constraint: the point was that if your objection is that legal underlying activity can constitute money laundering, then to prove your objection you need to show an example of provably legal underlying activity. On the other hand, if your complaint is that innocent-before-proven-guilty isn't being upheld by courts, that's a fine complaint, but an entirely separate one from money laundering. > What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering. In other words he did conceal illegal activity. Hence my point.
  - beaglessss 2y ago
    Every single bank and person conceals illegal activity by your final sentence. You probably have sold something for cash bought by a drug dealer and unknowingly laundered drug money. The point here is that an unwitting actor is somehow guilty if they did not do KYC. By your standard basically every gas station near the border is a money launderer, since they know damn well much of the cash they take and transmit is drug and cartel money. And that's the genius of this line of reasoning. There is nary a dollar in circulation that hasnt been used in crime.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts. I wasn't trying to make a case for what money laundering is, only what (as I understand it) it definitely isn't. The example you cite clearly covered up underlying criminal activity, whereas the claim was that you can be guilty of money laundering without any illegal underlying crime. Hence it fails to support the premise. That is all.
      - beaglessss 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dataflow 2y ago
        > No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering. How did I move to money laundering? Are we reading the same thread? The comment I initially replied to specifically said, "Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering"? > you were being duplicitous. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience. It's quite the opposite, but your personal swipes are pretty uncalled for, so I won't continue.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC Not at all. I have authorised large wires without providing KYC or collecting KYC from the other party. My bank knows who I am. And I colloquially know the person I'm sending money to. But I haven't e.g. run them through OFAC.

beaglessss 2y ago
Your counterparty was almost certainly KYCd if the receiving bank deals in USD or receive from a bank in us jurisdiction.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  I've wired non-USD from my U.S. bank and wired U.S. dollars overseas. I presume their bank is doing KYC. But I don't know. You claimed "all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC." That's simply untrue. It's advisable to ensure someone is doing their KYC. But not necessary.
  - beaglessss 2y ago
    Yes if you cutoff the first word it becomes untrue, how ridiculously disinguine. Here's an exercise, look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there. A lot of this compliance is driven through FATF actions that drive any country that wants access to anyone touching dollars or us banks to comply.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there So you've moved the goalpost from all large transactions to transactions with explicitly sanctioned (EDIT: listed) entities.
      - 2y ago