Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
3 days ago
> 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.
I follow some forums on international banking from time to time, occasionally I read the story of the guy who's deposits got AML flagged so they simply cut him a check, of course after they put him on world-check or some other banking black flag database that prevents him from depositing the check anywhere else. In that case in theory they don't lose their assets, but I have no idea what happens next.
cash the check at Walmart?
Seems like that would be a good anecdote to cite and not "I read it once on some forum", no? I mean... come on. Yes, it's possible it went down like that in a way that confirms all your libertarian priors about government overreach or whatnot.
But given the sourcing, my money is on "Some rube got roped into taking 'payment' as part of a laundering scheme and was left holding the bag". Real fraud is rampant and pervasive. Libertarian fantasies are usually just that.
1 reply →
> That doesn't seem to be a point made upthread in the chain to which I was responding.
That is fair. I've noticed that these things often go unsaid. I was just offering clarification. (And I'm glad I was close enough since I don't like misrepresenting others.)