Live data from Hacker News

The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

theguardian.com

1–10 of 150 posts

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#2
This article is repeating a transparently false framing as the truth. This wasn't a law about cartel money laundering, which doesn't happen near the border anyway. Money laundering at scale happens in the global market and always has.

The clear purpose of the regulation was exactly the "side effect" detailed in the article: hurting immigrant communities that maintain ties across the border. And it worked. It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#4
post #2

This article is repeating a transparently false framing as the truth. This wasn't a law about cartel money laundering, which doesn't happen near the border anyway. Money laundering at scale happens in the global market and always has. The clear purpose of the regulation was exactly the "side effect" detailed in the article: hurting immigrant communities that maintain ties across the border. And it worked. It does no…

[deleted]

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#5
post #2

This article is repeating a transparently false framing as the truth. This wasn't a law about cartel money laundering, which doesn't happen near the border anyway. Money laundering at scale happens in the global market and always has. The clear purpose of the regulation was exactly the "side effect" detailed in the article: hurting immigrant communities that maintain ties across the border. And it worked. It does no…

The issue is that it wasn't "clear" to sufficient people. Too many people believe at face value the claims. Some of them honestly believe the face value claims.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#8
post #3

Ah yes let’s ruin someone’s life over $200 but nobody look at Trumps accounts. He definitely was debanked for political reasons and not because he was laundering money.

> He definitely was debanked for political reasons and not because he was laundering money.

What proof do you have? On what planet would major banks piss off the most capricious and unrestrained president in modern US history? What possible upside could there be for them? Trump (34 time fraud felon known for scamming everyone he can and using his position in government to massively enrich himself) was almost certainly "debanked" because he is doing more of the same shady shit that he's known for and the banks are obligated by the law to treat him like anyone else.

Post reply on HN