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

Squillions: How money laundering won

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 238 posts

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#81

Post by marysol5 »

graemep wrote: post #68
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've mainly seen it in small businesses - e.g. food vendors - but instead they charge extra for using electronic payment methods. Also to offset the costs they're making on offering it I suspect, but it does encourage people to pay with cash.

> but instead they charge extra for using electronic payment methods. That is illegal in the UK. That is why many trades people here will accept bank transfers but not cards.

Even "minimum charge on card" is against VISA/MC rules. But it's still around.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#83

Post by marysol5 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #66

I learned a lot about the AML system many years ago and still have some books about how it works on my bookshelf. It's fascinating stuff. A few minor comments. My wife and I have owned and used 1000 CHF notes quite a few times in the past. The last two times we moved apartments I paid part of the moving fee with a 1000 CHF note. We've also bought furniture this way. Nobody was surprised to see this and the notes were…

>To a person who spent their life in Britain this sounds absurd because the British government has - true to form - been trying to wipe cash out for many years to improve surveillance.

Oh come of Facebook for christ sake. Absolute hogwash.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#84

Post by marysol5 »

padolsey wrote: post #36
throwaway290 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where cash is stigmatized? I haven't seen such a place except PRC. Most people want government to be able to seize assets of baddies. It is possible with cash, it is possible with banks, hardly possible with crypto. The technology to scam people at scale with untraceable emoney is not everybody's cup of tea. Speaking from a country that invaded its neighbor, for our government (as well as north korea) it is lovely to…

>Where cash is stigmatized? I haven't seen such a place except PRC. I don't know about stigma, per se, but there are a few places where businesses have a pretty explicit legal right to refuse cash, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, US. Oddly in PRC refusing cash is illegal.

Because "cash" isn't actually real, it's entirely a form of completion of a contract. The same contract that you could agree to complete by trading chickens, or bottles of bath water.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#85

Post by graemep »

pjc50 wrote: post #75
rwmj wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which creates national security and sovereignty issues Are you talking about people who don't pay tax? They create very large national security and sovereignty issues. Countries that don't collect much tax have real problems with both of these. > There is a good reason Sweden went from pushing cashless to advising people to keep cash at home for emergencies The key phrase being "for emergencies".

The national security and sovn. issues are when the US threatens to turn off the system, or starts sanctioning individual non-US nationals.

Or an enemy state of criminals attack centralised systems. Or even just a failure. I think Sweden's biggest concern is the threat posed by Russia.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#86

Post by alibarber »

dataflow wrote: post #54
caspper69 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, duffel bags full. But it doesn't take too many cash purchases that are not inline with your tax returns before somebody is going to start snooping around. edit: although sometimes, a lot longer than one might expect.

> Yes, duffel bags full. Citation needed? Where did you hear that this is a routine occurrence? That seems risky for everybody involved, and it requires a report to the government from the seller.

Selling a car usually does require a report to the government. Why would the seller care what happens down the line to the buyer?

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#87

Post by graemep »

rwmj wrote: post #72
graemep wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, governments continue to strengthen and expand laws in that direction. Which creates national security and sovereignty issues. Cash is robust and decentralised. There is a good reason Sweden went from pushing cashless to advising people to keep cash at home for emergencies, and were at least considering an obligation to accept cash for small transactions.

> Which creates national security and sovereignty issues Are you talking about people who don't pay tax? They create very large national security and sovereignty issues. Countries that don't collect much tax have real problems with both of these. > There is a good reason Sweden went from pushing cashless to advising people to keep cash at home for emergencies The key phrase being "for emergencies".

> Countries that don't collect much tax have real problems with both of these.

Nothing like as bad as the potential problem of your economy grinding to a halt.

There are other ways to deal with tax evasion. Those countries usually do not have good systems. If you investigate properly, design tax laws properly, chuck a few people in jail, etc. the problem can be solved.

Not using does not close loopholes, or prevent corruption, or stop people sending money offshore.....

> The key phrase being "for emergencies".

If you go cashless you will not have the infrastructure to use cash in an emergency.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#88

Post by graemep »

marysol5 wrote: post #81
graemep wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but instead they charge extra for using electronic payment methods. That is illegal in the UK. That is why many trades people here will accept bank transfers but not cards.

Even "minimum charge on card" is against VISA/MC rules. But it's still around.

Varies between countries, and card company rules are not quite as threatening as actual laws.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#89

Post by DrScientist »

> I reckon the luxury watch trade is 80 per cent money laundering

Found this quote interesting given Europes richest person is the head of a luxury brand company.

I always wonder who was buying all this high end stuff - the concentration of wealth has created a more billionaires - but they aren't that many of them and there is only so many watches one person needs.

It also may explain why China is struggling to establish it's own luxury brands - the money laundering prefers that cross border flow.

Re: Squillions: How money laundering won

#90

Post by gambiting »

graemep wrote: post #88
marysol5 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even "minimum charge on card" is against VISA/MC rules. But it's still around.

Varies between countries, and card company rules are not quite as threatening as actual laws.

>> and card company rules are not quite as threatening as actual laws

Well, they are plenty threatening in the sense that if you don't follow them, they will refuse doing business with you, which suddenly means you can't accept cards at all, which can kill a business entirely.

Post reply on HN