Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Money Laundering and AML Compliance

bitsaboutmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–218 of 218 posts

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#211

Post by richbell »

miohtama wrote: post #209
richbell wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I know of at least one large FI that tells auditors it's doing x, y, and z for security, when in reality their security practices are abysmal. They spend $1MM a year on a vendor product that in theory does x, y, z (though quite badly), install it on a server, and then never think about it again. I've had important projects canceled because executives go 'oh we already have $tool this project is a waste o…

You are not buying a solution, you are buying compliance. It does not matter if problem is either hidden or removed because the outcome for the executive success is the same. Hiding usually costs less.

Indeed. It took me a while before I realized that "tickbox compliance" was a deliberate strategy and not mere incompetence.

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#212

Post by pyuser583 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #179
pyuser583 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An innocent buyer would just say “I sold my home of 20 years to some company - Perwinkle LLC of Bermuda. Pretty strange, but not my problem.” The bank would report it, and in theory the feds could track down Periwinkle LLC. But tracking down holding companies consumes precious resources, and would be strategic, not just legal, decision. The US is obsessed with having a clean financial sector, but doesn’t care one jot…

>But tracking down holding companies consumes precious resources, and would be strategic, not just legal, decision. And 9x/10 when you track down Perwinkle LLC you'll find that it's owned by a couple American brothers who own a successful regional HVAC business and everything they are doing is legal. People love to act as if all this offshore stuff is frequently closely connected to illegal things but if you just ran…

Some people legitimately want privacy.

There was a minor scandal a while back when it became clear Queen Elizabeth was using exotic techniques to hid her assets.

She wasn’t doing anything wrong. She just didn’t want people conflating her private assets with her royal persona.

Even Jeremy Corbyn (socialist, republican, then-head-of-Labour) didn’t criticize her for it.

She just didn’t want the public snooping in her private business.

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#213

Post by eadmund »

wpietri wrote: post #203
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is nothing compared to the costs of crime in high-crime/high-corruption societies. Is it really though? How much was the US (or any other equally developed country) losing to crime and corruption prior to all this KYC/AML BS? Not that much. Letting a mobster have a bank account doesn't magically turn your country into Nigeria. If anything it makes your country better because the mobster doesn't have to store th…

> Is it really though? It really is. People flee high-crime/high-corruption countries for good reason. They also have demonstrably worse economies over the long term. KYC/AML efforts are only part of the difference, of course. But we've ended up with KYC/AML because it's one of the least intrusive ways of keeping crime in check. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go live in a high-crime/high-corruption countr…

Was the U.S. before these KYC/AML laws (within our lifetimes) a high-crime/high-corruption country? If so, are the KYC/AML laws responsible for the reduction? If so, is the cost of these laws less than, approximately equivalent to or greater than the money saved by reduction?

I can honestly see that this could be the case. But I can honestly see that it might not be. A related situation would be occupational licensing: maybe it saves society money, maybe it costs society money; how certain are we that we are at the correct balance?

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#214

Post by patriciaaa »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #26
irusensei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I’ve heard someone calling this shotgun KYC. They will allow you to deposit but as soon as you show signs of using that money they take it as hostage until you prove you are not a criminal.

Common with offshore online casinos: you can deposit and lose your money, but as soon as you try to withdraw winnings the KYC rolls out and you better hope you're not a US citizen because you weren't even supposed to sign up in the first place then.

[dead]

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#215

Post by dsfyu404ed »

eadmund wrote: post #213
wpietri wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really though? It really is. People flee high-crime/high-corruption countries for good reason. They also have demonstrably worse economies over the long term. KYC/AML efforts are only part of the difference, of course. But we've ended up with KYC/AML because it's one of the least intrusive ways of keeping crime in check. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go live in a high-crime/high-corruption countr…

Was the U.S. before these KYC/AML laws (within our lifetimes) a high-crime/high-corruption country? If so, are the KYC/AML laws responsible for the reduction? If so, is the cost of these laws less than, approximately equivalent to or greater than the money saved by reduction? I can honestly see that this could be the case. But I can honestly see that it might not be. A related situation would be occupational licensin…

You know how we can be pretty sure that the NSA's data haystack hasn't done much to prevent terrorism because if it did they'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

Well occupational licensing is the same way. If there was even a shred of a farcical bad-faith argument that it saved money they'd be happy to spout it. The fact that the proponents don't even have that and instead shove appeals to emotion in your face tells you everything you need to know.

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#216

Post by [deleted] »

meekaaku wrote: post #207
pyuser583 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a really great book called Kleptopia by T. Burgis. It’s about how wealthy oligarchs use the Western legal and banking systems. He points out that the US financial system is squeaky clean. Oligarchs wind up in prison because they think they can pull the crap in New York that they pull in London. But outside the financial sector it’s the 100% opposite. Americas permissive corporate transparency lets assets vani…

Honest question, where does this happen? If you are buying a house, the solicitor or whoever is dealing with legal/deed etc will ask where the money came from, don't they? In the UK atleast that seems to be the case. Lenders are fine as long as you can show your future income (eg by being employed), but not much about how you got your initial deposit money.

[deleted]

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#217

Post by astrange »

pjkundert wrote: post #174
astrange wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be proof of ownership if it's all of those things because ownership is decided by eg judges and not what's written in a random database somewhere.

Contract law. If we agree that what is scrawled on a napkin is a contract, it is.

Contracts can be written on napkins but they're not suicide pacts and judges can edit them after the fact.

Re: Money Laundering and AML Compliance

#218

Post by [deleted] »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #179
pyuser583 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An innocent buyer would just say “I sold my home of 20 years to some company - Perwinkle LLC of Bermuda. Pretty strange, but not my problem.” The bank would report it, and in theory the feds could track down Periwinkle LLC. But tracking down holding companies consumes precious resources, and would be strategic, not just legal, decision. The US is obsessed with having a clean financial sector, but doesn’t care one jot…

>But tracking down holding companies consumes precious resources, and would be strategic, not just legal, decision. And 9x/10 when you track down Perwinkle LLC you'll find that it's owned by a couple American brothers who own a successful regional HVAC business and everything they are doing is legal. People love to act as if all this offshore stuff is frequently closely connected to illegal things but if you just ran…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN