Comment by bradley13
3 days ago
Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime.
And, yes, this does get abused. Government is people, some of whom are evil, or out for revenge, or whatever. I had an acquaintance whose accounts were periodically frozen by the IRS, because he had pissed off the local office. He would get them unblocked, but only after weeks of missing mortgage payments and other bills.
Ending anonymous banking like in Switzerland was a major objective for the US. They said it was because it allowed money laundering for terrorists. People will get upset when the government talks about ending encryption in order to stop terrorism but the same concept applied to money apparently doesn't matter.
In practice we have a system where money laundering has not ended and we have much more financial surveillance for average citizens. That was probably the purpose all along and it never had anything to do with finding tax evaders or stopping terrorism.
> much more financial surveillance for average citizens
As with the TSA, any system designed to filter "bad guys" ends up being a huge imposition on average citizens, because there's a lot more of them.
I can see how TSA is an imposition on a large number of average citizens. The Internet is telling me that in recent years (except during COVID) about half of Americans flew in the past year [1], which would mean each year about half of Americans have to deal with the TSA.
But with money laundering and KYC I'm having trouble remembering ever having to deal with them. What are situations where the average citizen finds them an imposition?
I vaguely remember being asked what the sources were for the money in my IRAs, but don't remember who asked or what I was doing with them. Maybe it was during an application for a home equity line of credit? Anyway, whatever it was I just told them (rollover from a 401k, money from my salary, and earnings from investments held in the IRAs) and they didn't ask for any proof or anything.
[1] https://www.airlines.org/dataset/air-travelers-in-america-an...
8 replies →
We need far more of a willingness to "bite the bullet" and accept that sometimes bad things happen, and after a bad things happens we can simply go back to how we were doing things before.
We don't need to constantly change and often times collectively punish society for one bad terrorist attack.
2 replies →
What's the point of surveilling the movements of average citizens' money? They usually don't hide anyway. I suppose tax evaders were the target all along, with a smattering of criminal operators, e.g. drug dealers. Terrorists were but a pretext to produce moral panic.
You justify surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks, etc. and when public sentiment toward government is mostly good (the financial surveillance here is an example)
You make moves to constrict the available information and permitted behavior of residents and citizens in excess of what is defined by law through pressure on culture and public marketplaces, etc. and not legal action by government. (e.g. the stuff going on with erotic content on Steam recently, but not limited to stuff like that). You start with more questionable and controversial things like e.g. sexually explicit content, then progress to all content or ideas that are inconvenient to your regime.
You boil the frog of authority over the public at a rate where only a minority starts noticing problems and looking for solutions in educating themselves using politically inconvenient media (and flagging themselves as enemies in the surveillance tools) or taking action that is inconvenient to you
You start making court cases against these inconvenient people and start deporting them or incarcerating them. First with e.g. illegal immigrants or foreign national students that are saying things that are unpopular, but slowly escalate to all the people that disagree with you.
If you don't think all these things are well established, I'm not sure what to tell you.
9 replies →
> What's the point of surveilling the movements of average citizens' money?
The most important is taxation. People pay their babysitters or gardeners under the table, or transact with friends and family without reporting income, and this is a huge amount of lost tax revenue.
Another reason are policy options. For one, there are certain decidedly "non-terrorist" goods and services that the government might not want you to purchase. Heck, in the era of ZIRP, many economists were seriously talking about negative interest rates. You can't do that if a person has the option of taking out cash and hiding it under the mattress.
30 replies →
Control
4 replies →
If you can make private and uncensorable payments, you can pay an army.
The “only one army” concept is how governments remain governments.
If you could raise and pay a competing army, the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence becomes threatened.
This is why most states also heavily restrict private access to arms. Interestingly enough, it is also why the United States explicitly protected it: to specifically prepare for (and protect the right to) violent revolution.
9 replies →
Unless you have a regular 9-5 job (bonus point if it's government), most small businesses and sole traders are evading taxes (not just optimizing). Also, your ability to increase taxes is tightly linked to your ability to collect it. So by surveying transactions, you are able to increase taxes.
To be fair Switzerland really did (does?) help to launder a lot of money for terrorism.
very strong claims, any facts to back them up?
12 replies →
Don't forget tax cheats.
[dead]
> Moving money around is a crime...why?
The short answer is that said money is either the proceeds of a crime, or (in the other direction) being sent to or from a sanctioned person, organization, or country.
This is why it's so hard to push back against, like the TSA. "Do you want terrorists using the banking system?" is a killer argument for midwits.
> killer argument for midwits
It's a real shame that kind is allowed to vote. IMO, they're more destructive than the 90 IQ and below crowd.
If you pay income taxes you get a vote. Anything else is criminal and exceedingly destructive.
3 replies →
Just replace "money" with a gold bricks. If I have them in the trunk of my car and move it around, you can't arrest my car on the assumption that the bricks are "the proceeds of a crime". You have to reasonably prove it with all the red tape involved, or GTFO of my way.
Civil asset forfeiture- a law enforcement officer in many jurisdictions in the US can seize the gold bar without charging you with anything, under the assumption that it is proceeds for a crime, and in an insane twist, they get to keep part or most of the value of the seized property when it is sold at auction. It’s insane.
Everyone else telling you about civil forfeiture; I'm going to mention the original James Bond novel Goldfinger, in which part of the early plot is exactly Auric Goldfinger hiding gold in the panels of his Rolls-Royce in order to smuggle it out of the UK, which was illegal at the time. Even for gold legitimately owned.
(historical background: https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 )
Actually, yes they can. No warrant, no charges, nothing. It’s basically up to the discretion of the officer present.
The “crime” is alleged to the objects in question, and since they aren’t people they don’t have rights.
Civil Asset Forfeiture. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but it’s too profitable to stop.
My understanding was the police were able to do this in the US using civil forfeiture.
in some other country - maybe. in america - nope :)
lol look up Civil Asset Forfeiture.
lol, you absolutely can.
Money is a call option on the labor of its citizens. When money accumulates to people who operate against the best interests of its citizens more and more of a countries labor and future is traded for less societal value. There exists some tipping point where no societal value is created and money exists just to drain the vitality of its citizens. In other words, no matter how hard you work things only get worse.
A great article on this dynamics that is worth a read (https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-mo...)
This doesn't really have anything to do with "money laundering". For example, you get the same set of problems if the money is accumulating to monopolies or industries with artificial scarcity as a result of regulatory capture even though the law doesn't require them to "launder" the money they're accumulating.
Meanwhile in the case of classical criminal enterprises, the laws against money laundering don't actually work because in practice there are ten thousand ways to exchange value other than with official currency. And then the systems to prevent "money laundering" cause more problems for honest people who get trapped up in them out of ignorance, or become victims of corrupt government officials who use financial surveillance systems for oppression, whereas professional criminal organizations just restructure their activities to bypass the rules.
All of the other items you mentioned are things that society attempts to regulate against as well. And while there are an infinite number of ways to exchange value it stays between those involved. If the drug dealer is happy to trade heroin for house painting the damage is self limiting.
Once it’s converted to money it’s everyone’s problem. I can’t avoid my mortgage interest helping supporting the dealer who is supplying the addicts who are stealing my stuff. The harder I work, the worse it gets.
The controls may not be effective but I think they are necessary. I wouldn’t want to live in most countries where money laundering dominates financial activity.
8 replies →
It being a crime depends on who you are.
I'm in an EU country where banks go through all the necessary checks.
As someone who worked for a bank, I got hit by the AML check on a larger transaction, delaying it for over 3 months in the end, causing me to have to spend from my companies war chest instead.
Once, I mistakenly sent a large amount of money from my own account to my own account, which I had to spend multiple emails and phonecalls explaining the mistake to the tax authority.
But, we had cases where people illegaly transferred hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to accounts without anyone reacting.
We have a large amount of real estate that is "bought in cash". It is especially popular among politicians who declare getting a large "loan in cash from their mother" or "their parents collected money for years". When you compare the salaries to the amount of cash earned, it is obviously impossible unless they were genius investors too.
We have corruption cases in which money was transferred from government companies into personal accounts without anyone's knowledge or anyone triggering a check.
These transactions are somehow legitimate and not investigated.
The AML system as it is is not just inefficient, it is suspect to corruption, human error and vindictiveness.
One of the most common abuse is to call political opposition money launderers to freeze their assets
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-fatf-ra...
As someone who sees the outcome of people losing everything to sophisticated scammers/ fraudsters and thieves and how little authorities are able to do, nah, the overreach is not in sight.
There are more criminals than abusive IRS agents. And usually when people tell me stories like that, there is more to it..
C'mon, moving money is not a crime but moving money that has been illegally obtained is a crime (drugs, prostitution, illegal sports book,...) as is concealing the source or target of money sent to terrorist organizations and yes it makes certain things harder than they used to be for the rest of us.
Only one of 1000 money laundering alerts ends in prosecution of a criminal. 999 are innocent people suffering.
Most of the commenters here have zero connection to reality eh.
For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money.
The institution you're trying to transact will just will not work with you. They might not for any number of other reasons: adverse media, dodgy transaction history, etc. etc. etc.
Well, no? You can lose your money or access to your money which is very close by the practical means.
A friend of mine wired his money across the border following his relocation, transaction got blocked on KYC for several weeks, rollback became impossible because the source bank got sanctioned in the meanwhile. Money was forfeited with very little chance of recovery.
My personal account was frozen once due to KYC which made it impossible to pay the rent. Luckily I've had some reserves to live but paying for an appartement in cash isn't legal in my country of residence.
Saying "it's just the institution won't work for you" is extremely deceptive, on purpose or not. There are complementary laws that make sure you HAVE to deal with these institutions so when they close the door you're screwed.
June 23, 2025 - US Federal Reserve Board announces that reputational risk will no longer be a component of examination programs in its supervision of banks
> For the uninformed: if you cannot complete KYC or proof of wealth checks, you do not lose your money.
Your money indefinitely frozen without a clear process that requires lawyers, courts, money?, and time is essentially you losing your money.
That is the problem with this approach if you are a small guy. A big guy/corporation can pull other resources to fight this. You can't as it is probably your only bank account.
Money launderning is making it look like the taxes have been paid.
After you pay your W2 income taxes for the year, your income for the year is no longer taxable.
edit: I guess I can't argue with the holy writ of wikipedia, but it's how they got Al Capone.
That’s tax evasion.
Money laundering is disguising the source or use of funds (making illegally sourced cash look legally sourced).
Plenty of people would (do) happily pay some tax on cash as part of avoiding difficult questions about the source.
They are often related though as if you have illegal money you also didn't pap taxes on it and in turn they can get you because they may not know where the money is from they know you spent more than your taxes indicate is possible.
2 replies →
Just using an unlicensed hawaladar to transmit legally earned and taxed money is money laundering (whether that is the actual statute that would be charged, idk, but it falls under the stuff AML compliance is supposed to catch). The whole system is absolutely insane.
>Moving money around is a crime...why? It results in massive intrusiveness by government: full insight into everyone's finances, without evidence of a crime.
Because Karen is salty her teenage son's weed dealer isn't paying taxes, basically.
And then there's all the people who see these broad invasive things as a way to get at people who can't otherwise easily be caught, Al Capone and the like.
And don't forget all the idiots who see it as a means for "their guy" in government to exert control over people they don't like such as brown people without papers, uppity truckers with horns, etc.