8 ms·

Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime. An

Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime. And, yes, this does get abused. Government is people, some of whom are evil, or out for revenge, or whatever. I had an acquaintance whose accounts were periodically frozen by the IRS, because he had pissed off the local office. He would get them unblocked, but only after weeks of missing mortgage payments and other bills.

pjc50 1y ago
> Moving money around is a crime...why? The short answer is that said money is either the proceeds of a crime, or (in the other direction) being sent to or from a sanctioned person, organization, or country. This is why it's so hard to push back against, like the TSA. "Do you want terrorists using the banking system?" is a killer argument for midwits.
- fuoqi 1y ago
  Just replace "money" with a gold bricks. If I have them in the trunk of my car and move it around, you can't arrest my car on the assumption that the bricks are "the proceeds of a crime". You have to reasonably prove it with all the red tape involved, or GTFO of my way.
  - benmmurphy 1y ago
    My understanding was the police were able to do this in the US using civil forfeiture.
  - kiratp 1y ago
    lol look up Civil Asset Forfeiture.
  - efitz 1y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture- a law enforcement officer in many jurisdictions in the US can seize the gold bar without charging you with anything, under the assumption that it is proceeds for a crime, and in an insane twist, they get to keep part or most of the value of the seized property when it is sold at auction. It’s insane.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Everyone else telling you about civil forfeiture; I'm going to mention the original James Bond novel Goldfinger, in which part of the early plot is exactly Auric Goldfinger hiding gold in the panels of his Rolls-Royce in order to smuggle it out of the UK, which was illegal at the time. Even for gold legitimately owned. (historical background: https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 )
  - multjoy 1y ago
    lol, you absolutely can.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    Actually, yes they can. No warrant, no charges, nothing. It’s basically up to the discretion of the officer present. The “crime” is alleged to the objects in question, and since they aren’t people they don’t have rights. Civil Asset Forfeiture. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but it’s too profitable to stop.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    in some other country - maybe. in america - nope :)
- BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  > killer argument for midwits It's a real shame that kind is allowed to vote. IMO, they're more destructive than the 90 IQ and below crowd.
  - themafia 1y ago
    If you pay income taxes you get a vote. Anything else is criminal and exceedingly destructive.
    - chronia739 1y ago
      > If you pay income taxes you get a vote. Why? I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor. Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts? But voting for president is not?
      - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
        The fundamental goal of voting isn't to pick the best candidate, but to pick a consensus candidate in such a way that everyone feels their voice was or at least could have been heard. The distinction gets obscured because a lot of people describe their decision about who to vote for in terms of candidate quality, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find that most have cultural and ideological expectations in mind, and because those expectations are often incompatible we have to find a way to balance them that everyone will agree is fair.
      - themafia 1y ago
        > I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor. Seriously? That's probably because the FDA does not have the power to declare war, annex territories, or sign treaties on your behalf. > Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts? You're still allowed to go across borders and get medication that the FDA has not approved for your own personal use. This "restriction" isn't nearly as complete as you pretend it is. It actually only binds what professionals can do not what citizens can do. > But voting for president is not? It's actually /any/ representative. Does that make it clearer for you?
BMc2020 1y ago
Money launderning is making it look like the taxes have been paid. After you pay your W2 income taxes for the year, your income for the year is no longer taxable. edit: I guess I can't argue with the holy writ of wikipedia, but it's how they got Al Capone.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Just using an unlicensed hawaladar to transmit legally earned and taxed money is money laundering (whether that is the actual statute that would be charged, idk, but it falls under the stuff AML compliance is supposed to catch). The whole system is absolutely insane.
- LatteLazy 1y ago
  That’s tax evasion. Money laundering is disguising the source or use of funds (making illegally sourced cash look legally sourced). Plenty of people would (do) happily pay some tax on cash as part of avoiding difficult questions about the source.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    They are often related though as if you have illegal money you also didn't pap taxes on it and in turn they can get you because they may not know where the money is from they know you spent more than your taxes indicate is possible.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      Related but entirely different purposes. Paying taxes on illegally sourced money is basically the goal, because it makes it legal - it gives you a declared income and means future transactions look within your means. Tax evasion conversely makes legally earned money somewhat illegal to the evader (though generally fine for anyone else to handle accidentally).
      - bluGill 1y ago
        Paying taxes doesn't make illegal things legal. However it hides evidence. Al Capon was got on tax evasion because exidence of that was easier to prove. Everyone knew is other crimes - but there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
onetimeusename 1y ago
Ending anonymous banking like in Switzerland was a major objective for the US. They said it was because it allowed money laundering for terrorists. People will get upset when the government talks about ending encryption in order to stop terrorism but the same concept applied to money apparently doesn't matter. In practice we have a system where money laundering has not ended and we have much more financial surveillance for average citizens. That was probably the purpose all along and it never had anything to do with finding tax evaders or stopping terrorism.
- deepsun 1y ago
  To be fair Switzerland really did (does?) help to launder a lot of money for terrorism.
  - jajko 1y ago
    very strong claims, any facts to back them up?
    - Henchman21 1y ago
      They funded the Nazis with the help of the Catholic Church, did they not? Isn’t that a widely known fact? Or am I simply wrong?
      - ljlolel 1y ago
        Catholics were targeted by the Nazis so seems unlikely
        sincerely 1y ago
        The catholic church also helped Nazis escape germany after WWII: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)
        1y ago
vajrabum 1y ago
C'mon, moving money is not a crime but moving money that has been illegally obtained is a crime (drugs, prostitution, illegal sports book,...) as is concealing the source or target of money sent to terrorist organizations and yes it makes certain things harder than they used to be for the rest of us.
- jcz_nz 1y ago
  Most of the commenters here have zero connection to reality eh. For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money. The institution you're trying to transact will just will not work with you. They might not for any number of other reasons: adverse media, dodgy transaction history, etc. etc. etc.
  - gnerd00 1y ago
    June 23, 2025 - US Federal Reserve Board announces that reputational risk will no longer be a component of examination programs in its supervision of banks
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    Well, no? You can lose your money or access to your money which is very close by the practical means. A friend of mine wired his money across the border following his relocation, transaction got blocked on KYC for several weeks, rollback became impossible because the source bank got sanctioned in the meanwhile. Money was forfeited with very little chance of recovery. My personal account was frozen once due to KYC which made it impossible to pay the rent. Luckily I've had some reserves to live but paying for an appartement in cash isn't legal in my country of residence. Saying "it's just the institution won't work for you" is extremely deceptive, on purpose or not. There are complementary laws that make sure you HAVE to deal with these institutions so when they close the door you're screwed.
  - csomar 1y ago
    > For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money. Your money indefinitely frozen without a clear process that requires lawyers, courts, money?, and time is essentially you losing your money. That is the problem with this approach if you are a small guy. A big guy/corporation can pull other resources to fight this. You can't as it is probably your only bank account.
slv77 1y ago
Money is a call option on the labor of its citizens. When money accumulates to people who operate against the best interests of its citizens more and more of a countries labor and future is traded for less societal value. There exists some tipping point where no societal value is created and money exists just to drain the vitality of its citizens. In other words, no matter how hard you work things only get worse. A great article on this dynamics that is worth a read (https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-money-laundering https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-mo...)
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  This doesn't really have anything to do with "money laundering". For example, you get the same set of problems if the money is accumulating to monopolies or industries with artificial scarcity as a result of regulatory capture even though the law doesn't require them to "launder" the money they're accumulating. Meanwhile in the case of classical criminal enterprises, the laws against money laundering don't actually work because in practice there are ten thousand ways to exchange value other than with official currency. And then the systems to prevent "money laundering" cause more problems for honest people who get trapped up in them out of ignorance, or become victims of corrupt government officials who use financial surveillance systems for oppression, whereas professional criminal organizations just restructure their activities to bypass the rules.
  - slv77 1y ago
    All of the other items you mentioned are things that society attempts to regulate against as well. And while there are an infinite number of ways to exchange value it stays between those involved. If the drug dealer is happy to trade heroin for house painting the damage is self limiting. Once it’s converted to money it’s everyone’s problem. I can’t avoid my mortgage interest helping supporting the dealer who is supplying the addicts who are stealing my stuff. The harder I work, the worse it gets. The controls may not be effective but I think they are necessary. I wouldn’t want to live in most countries where money laundering dominates financial activity.
thecupisblue 1y ago
It being a crime depends on who you are. I'm in an EU country where banks go through all the necessary checks. As someone who worked for a bank, I got hit by the AML check on a larger transaction, delaying it for over 3 months in the end, causing me to have to spend from my companies war chest instead. Once, I mistakenly sent a large amount of money from my own account to my own account, which I had to spend multiple emails and phonecalls explaining the mistake to the tax authority. But, we had cases where people illegaly transferred hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to accounts without anyone reacting. We have a large amount of real estate that is "bought in cash". It is especially popular among politicians who declare getting a large "loan in cash from their mother" or "their parents collected money for years". When you compare the salaries to the amount of cash earned, it is obviously impossible unless they were genius investors too. We have corruption cases in which money was transferred from government companies into personal accounts without anyone's knowledge or anyone triggering a check. These transactions are somehow legitimate and not investigated. The AML system as it is is not just inefficient, it is suspect to corruption, human error and vindictiveness.
miohtama 1y ago
One of the most common abuse is to call political opposition money launderers to freeze their assets https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-fatf-raps-government-on-the-risk-to-abuse-that-non-profits-face/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-fatf-ra...
potato3732842 1y ago
>Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime. Because Karen is salty her teenage son's weed dealer isn't paying taxes, basically. And then there's all the people who see these broad invasive things as a way to get at people who can't otherwise easily be caught, Al Capone and the like. And don't forget all the idiots who see it as a means for "their guy" in government to exert control over people they don't like such as brown people without papers, uppity truckers with horns, etc.
ic_fly2 1y ago
As someone who sees the outcome of people losing everything to sophisticated scammers/ fraudsters and thieves and how little authorities are able to do, nah, the overreach is not in sight. There are more criminals than abusive IRS agents. And usually when people tell me stories like that, there is more to it..

pjc50 1y ago

> Moving money around is a crime...why? The short answer is that said money is either the proceeds of a crime, or (in the other direction) being sent to or from a sanctioned person, organization, or country. This is why it's so hard to push back against, like the TSA. "Do you want terrorists using the banking system?" is a killer argument for midwits.

fuoqi 1y ago
Just replace "money" with a gold bricks. If I have them in the trunk of my car and move it around, you can't arrest my car on the assumption that the bricks are "the proceeds of a crime". You have to reasonably prove it with all the red tape involved, or GTFO of my way.
- benmmurphy 1y ago
  My understanding was the police were able to do this in the US using civil forfeiture.
- kiratp 1y ago
  lol look up Civil Asset Forfeiture.
- efitz 1y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture- a law enforcement officer in many jurisdictions in the US can seize the gold bar without charging you with anything, under the assumption that it is proceeds for a crime, and in an insane twist, they get to keep part or most of the value of the seized property when it is sold at auction. It’s insane.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Everyone else telling you about civil forfeiture; I'm going to mention the original James Bond novel Goldfinger, in which part of the early plot is exactly Auric Goldfinger hiding gold in the panels of his Rolls-Royce in order to smuggle it out of the UK, which was illegal at the time. Even for gold legitimately owned. (historical background: https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 )
- multjoy 1y ago
  lol, you absolutely can.
- K0balt 1y ago
  Actually, yes they can. No warrant, no charges, nothing. It’s basically up to the discretion of the officer present. The “crime” is alleged to the objects in question, and since they aren’t people they don’t have rights. Civil Asset Forfeiture. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but it’s too profitable to stop.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  in some other country - maybe. in america - nope :)
BeFlatXIII 1y ago
> killer argument for midwits It's a real shame that kind is allowed to vote. IMO, they're more destructive than the 90 IQ and below crowd.
- themafia 1y ago
  If you pay income taxes you get a vote. Anything else is criminal and exceedingly destructive.
  - chronia739 1y ago
    > If you pay income taxes you get a vote. Why? I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor. Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts? But voting for president is not?
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      The fundamental goal of voting isn't to pick the best candidate, but to pick a consensus candidate in such a way that everyone feels their voice was or at least could have been heard. The distinction gets obscured because a lot of people describe their decision about who to vote for in terms of candidate quality, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find that most have cultural and ideological expectations in mind, and because those expectations are often incompatible we have to find a way to balance them that everyone will agree is fair.
    - themafia 1y ago
      > I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor. Seriously? That's probably because the FDA does not have the power to declare war, annex territories, or sign treaties on your behalf. > Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts? You're still allowed to go across borders and get medication that the FDA has not approved for your own personal use. This "restriction" isn't nearly as complete as you pretend it is. It actually only binds what professionals can do not what citizens can do. > But voting for president is not? It's actually /any/ representative. Does that make it clearer for you?

BMc2020 1y ago

Money launderning is making it look like the taxes have been paid. After you pay your W2 income taxes for the year, your income for the year is no longer taxable. edit: I guess I can't argue with the holy writ of wikipedia, but it's how they got Al Capone.

mothballed 1y ago
Just using an unlicensed hawaladar to transmit legally earned and taxed money is money laundering (whether that is the actual statute that would be charged, idk, but it falls under the stuff AML compliance is supposed to catch). The whole system is absolutely insane.
LatteLazy 1y ago
That’s tax evasion. Money laundering is disguising the source or use of funds (making illegally sourced cash look legally sourced). Plenty of people would (do) happily pay some tax on cash as part of avoiding difficult questions about the source.
- bluGill 1y ago
  They are often related though as if you have illegal money you also didn't pap taxes on it and in turn they can get you because they may not know where the money is from they know you spent more than your taxes indicate is possible.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    Related but entirely different purposes. Paying taxes on illegally sourced money is basically the goal, because it makes it legal - it gives you a declared income and means future transactions look within your means. Tax evasion conversely makes legally earned money somewhat illegal to the evader (though generally fine for anyone else to handle accidentally).
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Paying taxes doesn't make illegal things legal. However it hides evidence. Al Capon was got on tax evasion because exidence of that was easier to prove. Everyone knew is other crimes - but there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

onetimeusename 1y ago

Ending anonymous banking like in Switzerland was a major objective for the US. They said it was because it allowed money laundering for terrorists. People will get upset when the government talks about ending encryption in order to stop terrorism but the same concept applied to money apparently doesn't matter. In practice we have a system where money laundering has not ended and we have much more financial surveillance for average citizens. That was probably the purpose all along and it never had anything to do with finding tax evaders or stopping terrorism.

deepsun 1y ago
To be fair Switzerland really did (does?) help to launder a lot of money for terrorism.
- jajko 1y ago
  very strong claims, any facts to back them up?
  - Henchman21 1y ago
    They funded the Nazis with the help of the Catholic Church, did they not? Isn’t that a widely known fact? Or am I simply wrong?
    - ljlolel 1y ago
      Catholics were targeted by the Nazis so seems unlikely
      - sincerely 1y ago
        The catholic church also helped Nazis escape germany after WWII: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)
        1y ago

vajrabum 1y ago

C'mon, moving money is not a crime but moving money that has been illegally obtained is a crime (drugs, prostitution, illegal sports book,...) as is concealing the source or target of money sent to terrorist organizations and yes it makes certain things harder than they used to be for the rest of us.

jcz_nz 1y ago
Most of the commenters here have zero connection to reality eh. For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money. The institution you're trying to transact will just will not work with you. They might not for any number of other reasons: adverse media, dodgy transaction history, etc. etc. etc.
- gnerd00 1y ago
  June 23, 2025 - US Federal Reserve Board announces that reputational risk will no longer be a component of examination programs in its supervision of banks
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  Well, no? You can lose your money or access to your money which is very close by the practical means. A friend of mine wired his money across the border following his relocation, transaction got blocked on KYC for several weeks, rollback became impossible because the source bank got sanctioned in the meanwhile. Money was forfeited with very little chance of recovery. My personal account was frozen once due to KYC which made it impossible to pay the rent. Luckily I've had some reserves to live but paying for an appartement in cash isn't legal in my country of residence. Saying "it's just the institution won't work for you" is extremely deceptive, on purpose or not. There are complementary laws that make sure you HAVE to deal with these institutions so when they close the door you're screwed.
- csomar 1y ago
  > For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money. Your money indefinitely frozen without a clear process that requires lawyers, courts, money?, and time is essentially you losing your money. That is the problem with this approach if you are a small guy. A big guy/corporation can pull other resources to fight this. You can't as it is probably your only bank account.

slv77 1y ago

Money is a call option on the labor of its citizens. When money accumulates to people who operate against the best interests of its citizens more and more of a countries labor and future is traded for less societal value. There exists some tipping point where no societal value is created and money exists just to drain the vitality of its citizens. In other words, no matter how hard you work things only get worse. A great article on this dynamics that is worth a read (https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-money-laundering https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-mo...)

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
This doesn't really have anything to do with "money laundering". For example, you get the same set of problems if the money is accumulating to monopolies or industries with artificial scarcity as a result of regulatory capture even though the law doesn't require them to "launder" the money they're accumulating. Meanwhile in the case of classical criminal enterprises, the laws against money laundering don't actually work because in practice there are ten thousand ways to exchange value other than with official currency. And then the systems to prevent "money laundering" cause more problems for honest people who get trapped up in them out of ignorance, or become victims of corrupt government officials who use financial surveillance systems for oppression, whereas professional criminal organizations just restructure their activities to bypass the rules.
- slv77 1y ago
  All of the other items you mentioned are things that society attempts to regulate against as well. And while there are an infinite number of ways to exchange value it stays between those involved. If the drug dealer is happy to trade heroin for house painting the damage is self limiting. Once it’s converted to money it’s everyone’s problem. I can’t avoid my mortgage interest helping supporting the dealer who is supplying the addicts who are stealing my stuff. The harder I work, the worse it gets. The controls may not be effective but I think they are necessary. I wouldn’t want to live in most countries where money laundering dominates financial activity.

thecupisblue 1y ago

It being a crime depends on who you are. I'm in an EU country where banks go through all the necessary checks. As someone who worked for a bank, I got hit by the AML check on a larger transaction, delaying it for over 3 months in the end, causing me to have to spend from my companies war chest instead. Once, I mistakenly sent a large amount of money from my own account to my own account, which I had to spend multiple emails and phonecalls explaining the mistake to the tax authority. But, we had cases where people illegaly transferred hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to accounts without anyone reacting. We have a large amount of real estate that is "bought in cash". It is especially popular among politicians who declare getting a large "loan in cash from their mother" or "their parents collected money for years". When you compare the salaries to the amount of cash earned, it is obviously impossible unless they were genius investors too. We have corruption cases in which money was transferred from government companies into personal accounts without anyone's knowledge or anyone triggering a check. These transactions are somehow legitimate and not investigated. The AML system as it is is not just inefficient, it is suspect to corruption, human error and vindictiveness.

miohtama 1y ago

One of the most common abuse is to call political opposition money launderers to freeze their assets https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-fatf-raps-government-on-the-risk-to-abuse-that-non-profits-face/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-fatf-ra...

potato3732842 1y ago

>Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime. Because Karen is salty her teenage son's weed dealer isn't paying taxes, basically. And then there's all the people who see these broad invasive things as a way to get at people who can't otherwise easily be caught, Al Capone and the like. And don't forget all the idiots who see it as a means for "their guy" in government to exert control over people they don't like such as brown people without papers, uppity truckers with horns, etc.

ic_fly2 1y ago

As someone who sees the outcome of people losing everything to sophisticated scammers/ fraudsters and thieves and how little authorities are able to do, nah, the overreach is not in sight. There are more criminals than abusive IRS agents. And usually when people tell me stories like that, there is more to it..