Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters, corrupt politicians

Post by crtasm » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 1:06 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #36

umvi wrote: post #5

People on HN often dismiss the "nothing to hide" argument as invalid when it comes to strong privacy rights, but... the fact remains that those who very much want to hide their illegal activities and ill-gotten gains are first in line to the banks/services with the strongest privacy guarantees (swiss banks, cryptocurrencies, e2e chat apps, etc). It's a hard problem and I don't think saying "oh well, having human traf…

> ... are first in line to the banks/services with the strongest privacy guarantees (swiss banks, cryptocurrencies, e2e chat apps, etc). I'm not sure why crypto got bundled in there because it's anything but private. The entire transaction history is public. That's kind of the point. Look at tainted Bitcoins [1] and the couple caught trying to launder the Bitfinex Bitcoins [2]. Crypto is not private by design. [1]: h…

Post by vmh1928 » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 1:46 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #45

rich_sasha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree with everything you say (quote?), you’re not meant to bank with unexplained or unsavoury sources of funds. Eg storing money you stole from your murdered is not better than money laundering. Iirc some of the CS clients fell into this category and the bank was very keen to not ask questions. I’m pretty sure there is a bank somewhere in the Alps where Kim Jong Un has a little bank account under an appropr…

You're right, these are separate issues. What you're describing is really just money laundering, which is already illegal and there a number of dimensions available for this to be discovered and prosecuted under the law. What the person you are replying to is concerned about - and rightfully so[1] - is that zealous enforcement of banking controls, even though it comes from the same principled place of "dictators shou…

Post by rosndo » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

manquer wrote: post #82

barry-cotter wrote: post #23

> This article is a bit difficult to understand; there's a mixture of actual money laundering with the non-crime of "a really bad person has a bank account". There's a difficult and IMO increasingly urgent question here, of whether the banking system is a utility or something else. There's no whistleblowers from the electricity company, even though it literally kept the lights on for murderers and traffickers. Nobody…

You are conflating two different aspects. Almost anyone can be a bank's client, nobody is questioning their right to bank. The bank not questioning the source of the money they deposit is the problem here. That looks like an intentional institutional gap designed to enable money laundering and tax evasion. Vladmir Putin is free to open an personal account in any bank. However if he is depositing millions and billions…

Post by tinalumfoil » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 2:06 AM UTC

Teever wrote: post #79

rich_sasha wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit different. It sounds like with US civil forfeiture you can just seize any and all assets merely because someone is accused of something unrelated. This I agree is awful. Bank KYC is a bit different. A bank, certainly at this level, is supposed to know who you are and where your money is coming from ahead of setting up the account. They have to satisfy themselves it’s a legal source. If they become suspi…

Yes but a bank is supposed to do this because a law that was written to force them to do it. There is not reason other than that, and it's circular logic to sidestep due process to point to the law that says that they have to do it as the reason they have to do it.

Post by strogonoff » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

radicaldreamer wrote: post #76

from wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not like they put "explosives and other ordinances" in the subject line. For all the bank knew Atta was just some flight school student. If banks were to require justification for every wire transfer, legitimate commerce (also remittances and a bunch of other things) would grind to a halt.

Also, there are lots of wealthy Saudis all over and 100k probably doesn't even register as a "large" payment in those circles.