6 ms·

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).
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it What is a dark entity? Have you worked in finance? Because if you collect KYC and accepted forged or faulty documents, the moment you figure out what's going on is the moment you call your personal lawyer.
        2y ago

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).
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it What is a dark entity? Have you worked in finance? Because if you collect KYC and accepted forged or faulty documents, the moment you figure out what's going on is the moment you call your personal lawyer.
        2y ago