4 ms·

I recently had to confirm to a brokerage that I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. A sure sign of a legal team or possibly an

• bombcar 7mo ago
  For Good, not Evil, unless you're IBM™ https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
• nickff 7mo ago
  This is probably a meek attempt at demonstrating compliance with Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Lawyers will often suggest this sort of thing, because the only cost is a slight inconvenience to the client, and it might suggest 'good faith' in the case of a prosecution or enforcement action.
  • AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    So, the entire legal system.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• josephg 7mo ago
  > I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. My guess is that this is so they can ban any drug dealers from their site without consequence. "They violated our terms of service your honour!"
• wrs 7mo ago
  That’s simple CYA, and also ensures you’ve not only done the illegal activity, you’ve defrauded the brokerage and breached your contract with them, and they get a weak KYC defense as well. Similar to the “Al Capone” instructions from the IRS: >Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. On the other hand, if you want to talk about these stickers all over Seattle saying you’re not allowed to conduct illegal activities on the premises…
  • janalsncm 7mo ago
    I still don’t understand the CYA though. For the majority of banks, they do not want people to conduct illegal activity via their bank. For the minority of banks which don’t mind it, nothing stops them from adding the clause anyways. A cartel bank probably cannot use the existence of the clause as a defense if they’re still allowing illegal activity. If the purpose is to allow the bank to terminate accounts suspected of illegal activity, my assumption is they can already terminate for much less than that.
    • wrs 7mo ago
      It’s not just that they don’t want it, it’s that they’re liable for it themselves if they should have known it was happening. Asking you adds one more small layer of “we discouraged illegal activity and we didn’t know about any”.
      • janalsncm 7mo ago
        Maybe I am just slow. Bank 1 has the CYA clause and a cartel uses them for a decade for illegal purposes. Bank 2 does not have the clause and a cartel uses them for a decade for illegal purposes. In neither case does the clause prevent the illegal activity or make the bank any more or less aware of what customers are doing. They have to do KYC regardless of what the TOS says.
        • anamexis 7mo ago
          The point of the CYA clause isn’t to prevent illegal activity or make the bank more aware of what customers are doing. The point is that when Bank 1 is defending itself in court, it has one additional thing they can point at when arguing that it should not be liable for the illegal activities.
          • janalsncm 7mo ago
            Ok, fair enough. I just don’t think that is convincing evidence, personally. But there would be 11 other people on the jury.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]