Comment by marcosdumay
1 year ago
The law seems to be punishing people based on secret judgements over sealed "non-accusations".
Sorry, but no, I can't see why a country would want a law like this.
Honestly, my country had a dictator impose a Constitution that made sure every person had access to banks over 200 years ago (we haven't had a democracy at that point, but nobody even discussed it since, because nobody disagrees). I also can't understand how come the US treats that system so frivolously.
This is all tied to the war on drugs and laundering of drug money (post-9/11 it become about terrorism as well, but again, more on drug money being funneled into terrorist groups)
There are enough people in the US that think that the mere existence of drug users is an indictment of society, so any action taken to limit the ability of people who sell drugs is justified. You also see this with asset forfeiture laws.
So the reason these laws exist is the people against drugs, unable to see that the war on drugs has been lost for over 20 years at this point, want to impose more and more draconian restrictions around them which just fuels the power of cartels and criminal gangs selling drugs.
If the war on drugs worked then why can you get them in every high school and prison in the US?
You fight money laundering by letting people use the banks, have the banks record everything, and using the records on court to get the money back.
You may have something about limiting international transfers, but forcing people out of the banks is contrary to the goals of a criminal investigation.