3 ms·

Financial enforcement is empirically one of our most effective tools to combat organized crime. > We don't do this because of principles, because of the risk o

Financial enforcement is empirically one of our most effective tools to combat organized crime. > We don't do this because of principles, because of the risk of enabling other crimes, and because it would be a bad tradeoff Really the only reason we don't do this is because of the Constitution. The Constitution could prevent us from capturing beneficial ownership data from corporations, but indeed it does not. Of course one can make this argument in front of SCOTUS (and perhaps will some day) but there's a reason you're not making that argument now, which is that it's a bit silly on its face. Corporations are fundamentally legal objects of the state, which is why they're registered at all. You can operate whatever business you want without incorporating (and without the legal affordances thereof) and then you don't need to disclose any information to anyone.

nullc 2y ago
> Financial enforcement is empirically one of our most effective tools to combat organized crime. I'd love to read more on this position. > Really the only reason we don't do this is because of the Constitution. While the US is better about privacy than many other places, most of the developed world still manages to not be a surveillance hellscape without strong constitutional protections. Besides, the constitution does very little directly to protect privacy because the framers failed to anticipate technological advancement and the size of the future bureaucratic state... we have what we have largely because of jurisprudence that has read the constitution rather expansively-- which it's done so for the same reason that nations without constitutional civil liberties still largely respect individual privacy: it's a human right which we implicitly recognize.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  And to add, it’s worth noting that most of those places in the developed world that aren’t surveillance hellscapes do have national registries of business owner information.
apple4ever 2y ago
> The Constitution could prevent us from capturing beneficial ownership data from corporations, but indeed it does not It actually does, in numerous parts of it (the 9th Amendment comes to mind pretty easily). This is a bad law, with the usual bad excuse to harm innocent Americans. Point me to all the situations where this would have helped, and now compare that to the amount of time and money spent complying. Then we can have a fair debate.

nullc 2y ago

> Financial enforcement is empirically one of our most effective tools to combat organized crime. I'd love to read more on this position. > Really the only reason we don't do this is because of the Constitution. While the US is better about privacy than many other places, most of the developed world still manages to not be a surveillance hellscape without strong constitutional protections. Besides, the constitution does very little directly to protect privacy because the framers failed to anticipate technological advancement and the size of the future bureaucratic state... we have what we have largely because of jurisprudence that has read the constitution rather expansively-- which it's done so for the same reason that nations without constitutional civil liberties still largely respect individual privacy: it's a human right which we implicitly recognize.

TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
And to add, it’s worth noting that most of those places in the developed world that aren’t surveillance hellscapes do have national registries of business owner information.

apple4ever 2y ago

> The Constitution could prevent us from capturing beneficial ownership data from corporations, but indeed it does not It actually does, in numerous parts of it (the 9th Amendment comes to mind pretty easily). This is a bad law, with the usual bad excuse to harm innocent Americans. Point me to all the situations where this would have helped, and now compare that to the amount of time and money spent complying. Then we can have a fair debate.