6 ms·

Every time I have to fill in some AML (anti-money laundering) form I think how much of a waste of time and money it is for every party involved since the real b

by berjin 4y ago

Every time I have to fill in some AML (anti-money laundering) form I think how much of a waste of time and money it is for every party involved since the real big fish are getting around it with professional help. It's all very kafkaesque and invasive so I come to the conclusion it's more about powerful governments existing to gain more power than it is about solving any injustice.

majormajor 4y ago
Nothing will be 100% proof around evasion or exploitation. The answer isn't to do nothing and let it be a free-for-all.
- ted_bunny 4y ago
  It's darkly funny how nearly every control mechanism in capitalist society equates to merely making a particular action more or less expensive.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Very unlike in historically known communist societies, where a mere bribe was not enough, you had to have access to a right person to bribe.
- tobyjsullivan 4y ago
  I think both sentiments have merit and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Money stuff tends to follow power laws. The basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume. Doing nothing would leave those 80% of offenders free to launder which seems bad. Meanwhile, it seems fair to call the measures mostly ineffective. There’s also a cost to these measures. They frequently block or add friction for people just trying to do legitimate business. Is it worth it?
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Just as likely IMO is that the 20% are using regulatory capture to stomp out the 80% and consolidate their business and create even more effective crime.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume Concentrating illicit behavior into fewer nodes also makes whacking them when necessary simpler. I doubt the concentration this paper notes would occur were Russian and Chinese oligarchs able to hold dollars without KYC.
  - harha 4y ago
    Just makes the rest that can avoid it more powerful. KYC doesn’t protect you from much, all sorts of scams still send money to bank accounts and you wont get your money back from the bank it was sent to even though they should have systems in place to know what is happening and where money is going. And as you mention it doesn’t dissuade the powerful. So what’s the purpose other than control and bullying the ones who didn’t commit a crime?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  That's not what was proposed. The problem is that things like KYC laws are now probing down to thresholds like $600, so the cumulative cost (both directly, of compliance, and indirectly, of overbearing surveillance, chilling effects etc.) is hugely increased for little benefit. In the name of limiting untoward concentrations of money capital, it creates untoward concentrations of political capital.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    But this is like... killing two birds with one stone for, mmm, certain politicians?
kornhole 4y ago
Like many laws, they apply to you and me, not to the oligarchs. The international lawyers and accountants are the gatekeepers that navigate them through the loopholes.
- notch898a 4y ago
  That reminds me of FATCA. They made the burden just high enough for banks taking sub six-figure accounts that it's worthless to bank an American customer overseas unless they are rich.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Depends on the country. Progressive ones have laws against refusals to open accounts, especially if you are a citizen of the country you’re trying to open an account in.
- berjin 4y ago
  Yes and they do it under the pretence of solving sexual slavery or child sexual abuse...yet at the same time how many global leaders have visited J.Epstein's island?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Maybe none? There's no evidence that Clinton or Trump ever visited the island, so I guess the 10th in line to the British Throne is probably the closest you can get to a "global leader"?
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Trump not mentioned in court. Clinton yes. Celebrities and high profile figures named in court documents Prince Andrew Alan Dershowitz Emmy Taylor Sarah Kellen Eva Dubin Glen Dubin Jean Luc Brunel Nadia Marcinkova Bill Clinton Marvin Minsky Henry Jarecki Naomi Campbell Ron Eppinger Stephen Hawking
HashThis 4y ago
100%. Elites are allowed to do "money laundering" while commoners are put in jail for it. FinCen exists to put commoners in jail, for the same things the Elites can do without going to jail. The Elites use Shell Companies to do the same tactics. The following have FinCen put commoners in jail, but elites move money the same way via Shell companies and stay out of jail: 1) Breaking up transactions, to hide total amount. Commoners=Jail vs Elites=Shell Companies. 2) Fee assets when law enforcement comes = "Obstruction of Justice". Commoners=Jail w/FinCen. Elites=no jail via Shell companies articles of incorporation 3) Keeping identity secret. Commoners=Jail w/FinCen. Shell Companies= No Jail 4) ...list every way commoners go to jail via FinCan and cross boarder. Elites do full list via Shell companies and don't go to jail.
- nine_k 4y ago
  From your comment, shell companies look like some magical protective gear. Are they that expensive to set up? I think a discerning commoner could consider doing so if the amount of money is enough to certainly trigger AML.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
    I imagine super cheap and easy to set up. Can't be much more complicated than creating an LLC
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Such was my idea, too. But a peer comment mentions that the scheme only works if there is enough background activity to hide a particular tree in the forest. I'm puzzled.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    From what I've gathered from various schemes like this, including smaller-fry ones, it seems like the minimum requirement is to have enough Serious Business Shit going on that you can plausibly mask a bunch of activity (international, ideally) as part of that. Normal people don't. You've also got to have enough money that any tax authority looking at you decides you'd be an expensive target, so they won't try it unless they're sure it's a slam-dunk.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
AML is just the financial arm of global mass surveillance.
jhobag 4y ago
now go further down this line of thinking... how those with status and money must view the world as nothing more than theatrics. airport security theatre being the most obvious
moremetadata 4y ago
Watch this. The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire | Finance Documentary | History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfnkLurLA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfnkLurLA8 And if you dont like the source, here are some alternatives. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/09/city-london-corporation-lesson-lobbying https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/09/city-london... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-institution-big-business https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-londo... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor... https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/19/city-of-london-martin-parr-photographs-unseen-city https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/19/city-of...

by berjin 4y ago

majormajor 4y ago

Nothing will be 100% proof around evasion or exploitation. The answer isn't to do nothing and let it be a free-for-all.

ted_bunny 4y ago
It's darkly funny how nearly every control mechanism in capitalist society equates to merely making a particular action more or less expensive.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Very unlike in historically known communist societies, where a mere bribe was not enough, you had to have access to a right person to bribe.
tobyjsullivan 4y ago
I think both sentiments have merit and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Money stuff tends to follow power laws. The basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume. Doing nothing would leave those 80% of offenders free to launder which seems bad. Meanwhile, it seems fair to call the measures mostly ineffective. There’s also a cost to these measures. They frequently block or add friction for people just trying to do legitimate business. Is it worth it?
- notch898a 4y ago
  Just as likely IMO is that the 20% are using regulatory capture to stomp out the 80% and consolidate their business and create even more effective crime.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume Concentrating illicit behavior into fewer nodes also makes whacking them when necessary simpler. I doubt the concentration this paper notes would occur were Russian and Chinese oligarchs able to hold dollars without KYC.
- harha 4y ago
  Just makes the rest that can avoid it more powerful. KYC doesn’t protect you from much, all sorts of scams still send money to bank accounts and you wont get your money back from the bank it was sent to even though they should have systems in place to know what is happening and where money is going. And as you mention it doesn’t dissuade the powerful. So what’s the purpose other than control and bullying the ones who didn’t commit a crime?
anigbrowl 4y ago
That's not what was proposed. The problem is that things like KYC laws are now probing down to thresholds like $600, so the cumulative cost (both directly, of compliance, and indirectly, of overbearing surveillance, chilling effects etc.) is hugely increased for little benefit. In the name of limiting untoward concentrations of money capital, it creates untoward concentrations of political capital.
- nine_k 4y ago
  But this is like... killing two birds with one stone for, mmm, certain politicians?

kornhole 4y ago

Like many laws, they apply to you and me, not to the oligarchs. The international lawyers and accountants are the gatekeepers that navigate them through the loopholes.

notch898a 4y ago
That reminds me of FATCA. They made the burden just high enough for banks taking sub six-figure accounts that it's worthless to bank an American customer overseas unless they are rich.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Depends on the country. Progressive ones have laws against refusals to open accounts, especially if you are a citizen of the country you’re trying to open an account in.
berjin 4y ago
Yes and they do it under the pretence of solving sexual slavery or child sexual abuse...yet at the same time how many global leaders have visited J.Epstein's island?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Maybe none? There's no evidence that Clinton or Trump ever visited the island, so I guess the 10th in line to the British Throne is probably the closest you can get to a "global leader"?
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Trump not mentioned in court. Clinton yes. Celebrities and high profile figures named in court documents Prince Andrew Alan Dershowitz Emmy Taylor Sarah Kellen Eva Dubin Glen Dubin Jean Luc Brunel Nadia Marcinkova Bill Clinton Marvin Minsky Henry Jarecki Naomi Campbell Ron Eppinger Stephen Hawking

HashThis 4y ago

100%. Elites are allowed to do "money laundering" while commoners are put in jail for it. FinCen exists to put commoners in jail, for the same things the Elites can do without going to jail. The Elites use Shell Companies to do the same tactics. The following have FinCen put commoners in jail, but elites move money the same way via Shell companies and stay out of jail: 1) Breaking up transactions, to hide total amount. Commoners=Jail vs Elites=Shell Companies. 2) Fee assets when law enforcement comes = "Obstruction of Justice". Commoners=Jail w/FinCen. Elites=no jail via Shell companies articles of incorporation 3) Keeping identity secret. Commoners=Jail w/FinCen. Shell Companies= No Jail 4) ...list every way commoners go to jail via FinCan and cross boarder. Elites do full list via Shell companies and don't go to jail.

nine_k 4y ago
From your comment, shell companies look like some magical protective gear. Are they that expensive to set up? I think a discerning commoner could consider doing so if the amount of money is enough to certainly trigger AML.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  I imagine super cheap and easy to set up. Can't be much more complicated than creating an LLC
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Such was my idea, too. But a peer comment mentions that the scheme only works if there is enough background activity to hide a particular tree in the forest. I'm puzzled.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  From what I've gathered from various schemes like this, including smaller-fry ones, it seems like the minimum requirement is to have enough Serious Business Shit going on that you can plausibly mask a bunch of activity (international, ideally) as part of that. Normal people don't. You've also got to have enough money that any tax authority looking at you decides you'd be an expensive target, so they won't try it unless they're sure it's a slam-dunk.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

AML is just the financial arm of global mass surveillance.

jhobag 4y ago

now go further down this line of thinking... how those with status and money must view the world as nothing more than theatrics. airport security theatre being the most obvious

moremetadata 4y ago

Watch this. The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire | Finance Documentary | History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfnkLurLA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfnkLurLA8 And if you dont like the source, here are some alternatives. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/09/city-london-corporation-lesson-lobbying https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/09/city-london... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-institution-big-business https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-londo... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor... https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/19/city-of-london-martin-parr-photographs-unseen-city https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/19/city-of...