4 ms·

I think the point you're replying to still stands, it's just moved "up" a level: If someone cared to look into the financial history of someone with no grocery

I think the point you're replying to still stands, it's just moved "up" a level: If someone cared to look into the financial history of someone with no grocery store payments on their credit card (why are they looking into this person's spending history? Maybe because they're suspected of embezzling a lot of cash, I don't know!), found no credit card payments, looked further and found not enough ATM withdrawals to account for the amount of groceries the person presumably would've needed, the suspicion is still the same. The "investigators" just had to take it a step further. I doubt the person you're replying to thinks not a single person in the world pays cash at the grocery store, but I think it's reasonable to think that a lot of people do use credit cards at the grocery store (for points/rewards OR for actual credit; not to mention the convenience of not needing to have the cash on hand).

ryandrake 2y ago
Lack of data is also a data point, and could be considered suspicious if most "normal law abiding" profiles produce data. Imagine you're the IRS and you see 1,000 people living in the same neighborhood, with comparable lifestyle profiles. 999 of them report similar incomes and have similar banking/investment profiles, but 1 of them reports drastically lower income and has little-to-no banking presence. Who are you going to apply more scrutiny to? Not saying it's fair, but I know an outlier when I see one.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  What even is the goal of such a speculative dragnet based endeavor? Instilling fear? Enough of those "one in a thousand" cases are going to be legitimate people with oddball reasons to do what they do, and the minority of those who shoot back will still be enough that you'll get your guys killed faster than you find real headline grabbing criminals. Sure you'll roll up a bunch of petty dealers (these will be most of the people who shoot back) and you'll slander all the innocents but this sort of big dick of the law dragnet based stuff isn't an effective use of resources. It makes two people hate you for every useful idiot it makes respect you. Reminding everyone that none of this is voluntary and it all hinges on violence is highly counterproductive generally. If the goal is to get everyone to goose step in line and pay their taxes doing positive things to legitimize the government is a far better use of resources. Build a bridge or renovate a port or something.
- thraxil 2y ago
  There's still quite a gap between "suspicious" and "probable cause". Just having a large amount of cash isn't by itself illegal. You could easily have enough cash to live on for quite a while having inherited it or earned it decades ago, etc.
  - marcheradiuju 2y ago
    There is a gap, but in my country, the AML regime is concerned with the bar of "reasonable to suspect" rather than "probable cause". This is the only way you could catch any laundering of any sophistication.

ryandrake 2y ago

Lack of data is also a data point, and could be considered suspicious if most "normal law abiding" profiles produce data. Imagine you're the IRS and you see 1,000 people living in the same neighborhood, with comparable lifestyle profiles. 999 of them report similar incomes and have similar banking/investment profiles, but 1 of them reports drastically lower income and has little-to-no banking presence. Who are you going to apply more scrutiny to? Not saying it's fair, but I know an outlier when I see one.

potato3732842 2y ago
What even is the goal of such a speculative dragnet based endeavor? Instilling fear? Enough of those "one in a thousand" cases are going to be legitimate people with oddball reasons to do what they do, and the minority of those who shoot back will still be enough that you'll get your guys killed faster than you find real headline grabbing criminals. Sure you'll roll up a bunch of petty dealers (these will be most of the people who shoot back) and you'll slander all the innocents but this sort of big dick of the law dragnet based stuff isn't an effective use of resources. It makes two people hate you for every useful idiot it makes respect you. Reminding everyone that none of this is voluntary and it all hinges on violence is highly counterproductive generally. If the goal is to get everyone to goose step in line and pay their taxes doing positive things to legitimize the government is a far better use of resources. Build a bridge or renovate a port or something.
thraxil 2y ago
There's still quite a gap between "suspicious" and "probable cause". Just having a large amount of cash isn't by itself illegal. You could easily have enough cash to live on for quite a while having inherited it or earned it decades ago, etc.
- marcheradiuju 2y ago
  There is a gap, but in my country, the AML regime is concerned with the bar of "reasonable to suspect" rather than "probable cause". This is the only way you could catch any laundering of any sophistication.