6 ms·
The point is, no judge or jury should be fooled into thinking putting “don’t do illegal stuff” in a TOS actually should matter. Forget the TOS. They allowed ill
by janalsncm 7mo ago
The point is, no judge or jury should be fooled into thinking putting “don’t do illegal stuff” in a TOS actually should matter. Forget the TOS. They allowed illegal activity.
- stavros 7mo agoThe point is they can claim they didn't know.
- lxgr 7mo agoYes, and any functional legal system would then tell them that asking the subject directly and explicitly whether they're trying to use your bank for money laundering does not count as "taking measures". If you have actual measures (such as asking for source of funds and then asking for proof if the evidence looks incongruent with what was stated), you have no need for the silly question; if you don't, the silly question won't save you either. This should go for both the asker and the subject of the question: Illegal things are already illegal. If a given legal system requires the silly question to be able to "tack on wire fraud charges" to something that would otherwise go unpunished(?!), I think what should be fixed is the legal system, not every single banking form.
- stavros 7mo agoYeah, this makes sense, it is a bit of CYA theater.