Comment by mothballed
3 days ago
There's no KYC to take possession of a wallet, how would you prove the wallet wasn't just traded to you (maybe even yesterday) instead of moving the bitcoins?
3 days ago
There's no KYC to take possession of a wallet, how would you prove the wallet wasn't just traded to you (maybe even yesterday) instead of moving the bitcoins?
AML statutes don't invert the burden of proof! If the government wants to prosecute you for taking money, they still have to prove you took the money beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm always amused by the paranoia in the xxxcoin communities. If the government had and exercised the power you believe it does, why on earth do you think putting your money in bitcoin or whatever would provide any protection at all?
Edit: case in point:
> KYC and AML invert the burden of proof and are essentially an exception to the 4th amendment
Oooph.
> If the government wants to prosecute you
Their point is that the government does not prosecute you, they threaten the banks with "regulatory incidents" if they don't comply. The result is that some people find it difficult to ever open a bank account with no means to "clear their name" as it were.
That doesn't seem to be a point made upthread in the chain to which I was responding. The contention was that people could lose assets or be prosecuted. And no, they can't, that's ridiculous.
5 replies →
KYC and AML invert the burden of proof and are essentially an exception to the 4th amendment, that's why they're so controversial.
I tried to open a bank account when I was moving states before I had a local state ID or any utility bill or proof of address, no one would do it because they stated the standard the feds hold them to for KYC would essentially presume I am guilty of lying and require me to provide documentation to prove I'm not.