[HN Gopher] Money Laundering and AML Compliance ___________________________________________________________________ Money Laundering and AML Compliance Author : dduugg Score : 91 points Date : 2023-02-10 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bitsaboutmoney.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bitsaboutmoney.com) | timcavel wrote: | [dead] | yieldcrv wrote: | Al Capone would have passed KYC | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Al Capone would fail KYC just on reputational risk and negative | media exposure before we even get into unclear source of | wealth. | yieldcrv wrote: | Everyone can get banked unless they didn't pay overdraft fees | (in Chex Systems in some way). All he needs is one bank and | brokerage firm for total access to the domestic and | international electronic banking system. There are enough | around. All the major ones would take his account. Negative | media exposure lol, as if this is publicly broadcasted, but | even then, those fees would be enticing. | pjkundert wrote: | _Governor Tarkin:_ Princess Leia, before your | execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this | battle station operational. No star system will dare oppose the | Emperor now. | | _Princess Leia:_ The more you tighten your | grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your | fingers. | | Every government and central bank in the world is tightening | their grip around the tiniest transactions of their citizenry. In | the meantime, they are printing Trillions and shovelling it to | their sycophantic corporate and political elite buddies. | | And then, they wonder why people are being driven to use | Cryptocurrency... | | For those of you who are offended by this characterization; how | does burdening 8 billion law-abiding Citizens with impossibly | complex and arduous KYC/AML requirements make sense -- when just | _one_ FTX incident exceeds the value of all legitimate remittance | transactions on the planet for the entire year, and KYC /AML | doesn't affect the likes of FTX, Tether, etc. in the least? | | Perhaps you feel like you're "doing something". You are -- making | every law-abiding free Citizen feel like a criminal and expend | countless hours of life-energy, to do precisely _nothing_ to | solve the problem, while crippling the legitimate small business | and personal enterprise of the entire planet. | | Congratulations! | matheusmoreira wrote: | > And then, they wonder why people are being driven to use | Cryptocurrency... | | If only. Normal people are only buying crypto to speculate. | They drive the price up to absurd levels and then write it all | off as a scam when it corrects. Meanwhile good technology like | Monero remains marginalized instead of replacing the USD as it | should. | pjkundert wrote: | You seem to be speaking for ... a lot of people you can't | possibly know -- such as me, and every person I work with and | deal with on a day to day basis in the Crypto R&D field. | | As for Monero -- don't complain, let's bring it mainstream by | _building something_. Specifically: something that state- | level interference can 't stop, even if they're quivering in | rage that it exists! | | That's what us "speculators" who code every day on large- | scale Cryptocurrency decentralized systems are doing... | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > good technology like Monero remains marginalized instead of | replacing the USD as it should. | | Imagine you achieve your Crypto-dream, known mass murderers | like the head of Wagner or Kadyrov will move money with | impunity. | | Current system is problematic, but I don't fancy the idea of | money being conpletely untouchable by the system of justice | notch898a wrote: | Yeah then law enforcement would actually have to catch | Kadyrov for you know, murdering civilians rather than for | moving money. That sounds awful. | timerol wrote: | > burdening 8 billion law-abiding Citizens with impossibly | complex and arduous KYC/AML requirements | | TFA notes that "This will affect the typical user of the | financial system precisely zero times during their lives." It | is very much not a complex and arduous situation in most | instances, only in very few edge cases. (Which patio11 wants us | to pay closer attention to.) I had occasion to unexpectedly | transfer $10k over ACH recently, and, while a few minutes on | the phone with my bank confirming things was slightly annoying, | I would describe it as neither complex nor arduous. I am | confident that it did not trigger a CTR or SAR, given it was | not a cash transaction, and I was happy to answer a few | questions. | exbanker wrote: | This is just factually untrue. AML policies unjustly affect | millions of Americans. | | At US Bank, you can't deposit cash without an ID which is | standard post 2018 or so. Yet go to a US Bank in a low income | area, deposit $100 in a family member's account and they will | ask for ID, social security number and your job. | | US Bank has been involved in multiple money laundering | scandals leading to deferred criminal prosecution. | | Many friends have times where they can't withdraw their own | cash, have had accounts closed, have been falsely reported | for fraud without any recourse etc etc. | | Also because financial fraud and identity theft is rarely | prosecuted, regular Americans are bombarded with friction and | hassle to transact. | | People outside normal banking use Chime or prepaid bank | cards, which promptly get banned from being used in a wide | variety of businesses. | | AML policies and the Bank Secrecy Act is a violation of the | 4th Amendment. The BSA (a misnomer) has expanded in scope | since the 70s and as money has inflated. It's went from an | adjusted $70,000+ to $600 today (or $85 in 1970s dollars). | | And it seems the Supreme Court is going to act on the BSA | sometime in the next year. It is a crime against the | individual, a violation of civil rights and indefensible. | | It is purely motivated by tax enforcement and controlling the | population. It does not prevent or identify crime. There is | an estimated trillion+ of trade based money laundering every | year. | btilly wrote: | While I appreciate the problems that you're describing, I'm | dubious that it violates the 4th amendment. In particular | look at the Private Search Exemption. Which says that the | 4th amendment does NOT apply to searches done by private | parties. And if a private party has voluntarily done the | search and reported it to the government, the government | may redo the search without a warrant, but can't exceed | what the private party said. | | This applies here because both KYC and AML procedures are | set up and carried out by private banks. Which makes it a | private search, that fits squarely in the exemption. | | In turn this begs the question of whether the government | can encourage through intentionally vague regulation | behavior that they cannot directly ask for. But given the | courts we have, I suspect they will avoid answering this | question. | | Furthermore it is hardly the worst violation of the 4th | that is common. I'm personally most incensed about civil | forfeiture. Through the workaround of suing your stuff | instead of you, all Constitutional protections are voided. | The result is essentially legalized robbery by the | government, carried out by the very law enforcement | departments that directly profit from the proceeds. Given | that the courts have repeatedly OKed this, why would you | expect them to object to KYC and AML? | notch898a wrote: | It's not really a private or voluntary search when it's | imposed by government. Otherwise I could just make a | _law_ saying everybody who walks down X private road has | to get searched by private security or turn around, | obviously that won 't work. The private road owner might | never wanted to do it, they're only doing because the gun | of the government man is at their head. | | It is a public search carried with the dirty work portion | of the search done by private entities directed by the | state. | btilly wrote: | But the government DIDN'T impose it. Whatever the bank's | procedures may be, the regulator can say with a straight | face, "We didn't tell them to implement those procedures, | and we didn't tell them to take those actions. That was | their decision." | | And, unbelievable as it may seem, the government won't be | exactly wrong either. | pjkundert wrote: | I'm always gobsmacked at the level of ... jawdropping "Let | them eat cake!" self-delusion displayed by some wealthy | people. | | "This hasn't affected me, so it mustn't affect anyone!" | | The grinding day-to-day slogging, through the mud of | irrelevant and useless regulatory burden experienced by the | "lesser" classes of civilization (and anyone actually | trying to run a small business) is just astonishing. | | Basically, many people just "stop". They can't navigate it, | and know they'll never defeat it. So they just cease to | try. | notch898a wrote: | I thought their response was sarcasm. Surely no one would | seriously think it is reasonable to be questioned over | the phone over $10k which is what, enough to cover a | month of expenses for an upper middle class family in | Manhattan or San Francisco? | | As for a SAR, lmao. It's illegal for them to tell you if | you triggered it, how on earth would you know? | pjkundert wrote: | Ihre Papeire bitte. | | Stop And Frisk. | | Nobody without something to hide should want | privacy/encryption. | | Forcing 8 Billion people to KYC/AML before buying a coffee or | helping a relative isn't too much to ask. | | Amirite? /s | ourmandave wrote: | I dunno, I sent Sam Bankman Fried all my Galactic fiat credits, | and suddenly couldn't make withdrawals. | | I called my senator to look into it, but then I find out the | Emperor has dissolved the senate. | irusensei wrote: | It is expensive to keep a crime and corruption department on your | banking institution. If you are dealing with a millionaire who is | related to some oil mogul in Russia you can do your due diligence | and Vladimirovich can hire a team of accountants to prove that | his business is legit and not at all related to the corporativist | oligarchy his uncle runs. Or it might be, but the risk vs reward | is good enough to turn a blind eye for now. | | Ivan, immigrant from Belarus who drives a bus and likes to | withdraw cash from his <5000 euro account? Get this living | liability out of my bank! I won't run a whole department or risk | getting fined because some no name pauper. But since we can't | just ban him let's just ask for ridiculous documents like proving | the nationality of his grandfather (real story btw) or criminal | records, translated in English, by an official translator. Let's | annoy him so much with retarded requirements he will leave by | himself and if he fails to provide our totally not arbitrary | evidence we write a polite e-mail stating that we are sorry but | we won't run his account anymore. | | That's basically AML compliance to you. | malux85 wrote: | Also - wait until Ivan has put 10k in your system, _then_ ask | for the documents and refuse to give the money back hoping he | will abandon it. | | - Lawful evil AML companies | notch898a wrote: | Or send him a check for the balance and then put derogatory | information under chexsystems and all the other banking | blacklists so it can't be cashed. | irusensei wrote: | I think I've heard someone calling this shotgun KYC. They | will allow you to deposit but as soon as you show signs of | using that money they take it as hostage until you prove you | are not a criminal. | cmeacham98 wrote: | Common with offshore online casinos: you can deposit and | lose your money, but as soon as you try to withdraw | winnings the KYC rolls out and you better hope you're not a | US citizen because you weren't even supposed to sign up in | the first place then. | [deleted] | josephcsible wrote: | Why is "if you gambled but we found out you weren't | allowed to gamble, we'll take back your winnings but not | give back your losses" legal? Shouldn't it have to be | either "we'll reset everything back to before you | gambled" or "everything you already did stands; you just | can't do anymore (and are probably in trouble)"? | cmeacham98 wrote: | It probably isn't, but generally their ToS says you're | not allowed to be in the US when you sign up, and they | don't operate in the US. So you'd have to go sue them in | the jurisdiction of whatever island nation they're | operating in (or get the authorities there to care). | | Additionally, if you're within the majority of people who | deposit money and lose it all you're not going to even | know this unless you do some active research about the | casino. | josephcsible wrote: | Why couldn't such a judgment be enforced from a US court, | by forbidding any American banks from sending any money | to their bank until they pay up? | cmeacham98 wrote: | These sites typically operate using deposits/withdrawals | in cryptocurrency. | tablespoon wrote: | > Why is "if you gambled but we found out you weren't | allowed to gamble, we'll take back your winnings but not | give back your losses" legal? | | I don't know the actual law is, but it could be that the | _customer_ is the one who committed the crime of illegal | gambling. If that 's the case, it doesn't matter if | keeping his winnings is legal or illegal, if the gambler | brings suit he puts himself in legal jeopardy and I don't | think the courts will enforce contracts associated with | illegal activities (e.g. a hitman can't go to court to | force his client to pay). | earnesti wrote: | It is likely not legal but the gamblers are too lazy to | take it to courts I would guess, and the casinos are in | jurisdictions where it might be really tedious or | expensive. | wolongong942 wrote: | Sites like Paypal and Skrill did this because they know | most people would otherwise just cancel on sign up , and | when you've got money locked in you have no choice but to | complete verification. Thankfully i haven't had to deal | with their crap in the past 4 years due to better options | existing. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _annoy him so much with retarded requirements he will leave | by himself_ | | This is rare. It may be the effect. But plenty of financial | institutions openly deny risky accounts; no need to needlessly | spin wheels. | | Your broader point is correct, however. Because of the risk, a | lot will be demanded. Because of the reward, nobody is | motivated to push back on compliance. | irusensei wrote: | > This is rare. | | I have a funny passport so some institutions are often | probing my life and the source of my funds. The criminal | records translated to english (I'm not from an english | speaking country, I don't live or work on an english peaking | country) happened to me. | | I also had a chat with a polish woman who told me that UK | banks required documents about her grandparents nationality | when she went there for study circa 2014. | | I am convinced xenophobia is alive and well through the | financial system. Hell... even cheered by often progressive | people who thinks the AML/KYC framework is protecting their | lands from foreign barbarians. | mistrial9 wrote: | a large backdrop to this topic is controlling Oil and Gas | trade dollars .. narco dollars is real and large, but OaG | trade volumes are large and increasingly fought over.. | | also agree on the xenophobia -- but instead of culture this | is turf wars over control of large dollar trade over time | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _I am convinced xenophobia is alive and well through the | financial system._ | | It's really not. You don't make money by unnecessarily | turning business away. | btilly wrote: | It really is. | | Go read patio11's AML article again. He gives examples. | And says he has personally experienced it. | | More importantly he explains why it happens. And | expresses a wish for more scrutiny on how AML works in | practice, because the common result has some bad effects. | | Here is his explanation. Having regulators crack down on | you is bad for business. Which they will do if money | laundering is found. And money launderers actively want | to bounce money between different organizations in | different legal jurisdictions. Therefore if someone wants | to send money to a different country, particularly if | they look like they might be hard to find if regulators | decide to ask hard questions, they get arbitrarily | increased scrutiny. The result of which is | indistinguishable from xenophobia. (Which may also be | involved.) | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _The result of which is indistinguishable from | xenophobia._ | | Yeah, but it's not xenophobia: it's mandatory compliance | activity associated with a framework that - if it did not | exist - banks would not do. Motives matter. Xenophobia | wouldn't be distributed in accordance with weak national | finance controls etc. | btilly wrote: | Any instance is plausibly not xenophobia. Which ones are | is hard to prove. | | But in practice it is set up and carried out by people | who often have some level of personal xenophobia. Thereby | generating an institutional cover for personal feelings. | The extent of this is impossible to verify. But certainly | more than zero. And, anecdotally, likely far more than | zero. | | That the policies are not simply distributed in | accordance with weak national financial controls is | demonstrated by the fact that Patrick McKenzie (US | citizen) has encountered these problems multiple times | while trying to get Japanese banks to deal with US | financial institutions. Japan does not doubt that the USA | has strong national financial controls. But "foreigner | wanting to deal with foreigners" still generates | heightened scrutiny and sometimes real problems. | Mandatum wrote: | Sure, but they like to allow as many of them in as they | legally can. Hence the questions. | tagyro wrote: | The same thing happens in Germany, with N26. Under the pretext | of "regulatory requirements", they ask for information like | income amount and source, employment status and industry etc. | BaFin (the banking supervisory authority) is ignoring this, | like they did with Wirecard | pyuser583 wrote: | There's a really great book called Kleptopia by T. Burgis. It's | about how wealthy oligarchs use the Western legal and banking | systems. | | He points out that the US financial system is squeaky clean. | Oligarchs wind up in prison because they think they can pull | the crap in New York that they pull in London. | | But outside the financial sector it's the 100% opposite. | Americas permissive corporate transparency lets assets vanish. | | The best example: if you want to get a mortgage to buy a house | you have submit to a financial strip search. But if you want to | buy a house with bags of cash, _you don't even need to give | your name._ | Spooky23 wrote: | Real estate is the ultimate legal grift in the US. The whole | tax system is wired up to the benefit of real estate | investors. | fedreserved wrote: | [dead] | psobot wrote: | Every post from patio11 is such a joy to read: precise, exact, | descriptive, and entertaining. I'd love to understand where his | writing style comes from and how to emulate it. | abdullahkhalids wrote: | I really hope he compiles these blogposts into a book. There is | so much nuanced industry knowledge here. | | > I'd love to understand where his writing style comes from and | how to emulate it. | | In the "good old days" they made students memorize passages | from great authors and reproduce them. The idea being that this | process will force you to think about the structure of their | sentences and vocabulary. I used to do this when I was a kid, | but I don't think I did it enough to have an impact. | mablopoule wrote: | Agree, It's the perfectly balanced between "too dry/academic", | or "too vague/gimmicky". | | It's often mentionned in HN, but in the same style, I cannot | recommend enough "Money stuff" [1] which is Matt Levine's | newsletter at Bloomberg. Highly entertaining. | | [1] | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-06/musk-g... | exbanker wrote: | The biggest money launderers are close to those who write the AML | policies. | | One of the most significant money launderers is a famous attorney | from Shearman and Sterling in NYC. | | From my experience, prominent financial executives attempted to | engage in blatant laundering of drug money in BVI. These | individuals were connected to the attorney and one is a public | official appointed by 4 US Presidents. | | This was 20+ years ago and I don't know what they actually did, | but I was in the room when they tried to do it. Outside the room | hung a giant photo of George W. Bush golfing with the firm's CEO. | | They offered me $1 million in cash to fly with $100m at a time to | Tortola. The financial structure was created by the attorney. | mmerlin wrote: | Thanks to the Wikileaks effect of the internet (rapid info | declassification + sharing) more corruption is able to be | exposed, and the scale is shocking and enormous. | | The hardest part is then trying to change a known-to-be-corrupt | system, when those who write the rules always do so in their | favour. | | Here in Australia we have slid into the bottom 10 percent of | global corruption index [0] | | Politicians, lawyers, accountants, and realestate agents have | conspired to repeatedly prevent AML from being introduced to | Australia since 2002. | | Whistleblowers get threatened with life-destroying jail terms. | | Politicians "retire" then take up cushy directorships with | numerous companies they previously wrote seemingly treasonous | laws for (dozens of slap-in-the-face-blatant corruption yet it | continues on with impunity or any punishment except for maybe | losing an election or a gravy train contract). | | [0] https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/cpi-2021-corruption- | wat... | sjy wrote: | Source shows the opposite: although Australia is declining in | the rankings, it remains in the top 10% of least corrupt | countries. | HWR_14 wrote: | Like, they offered you $1MM (clean) to put $100MM cash in a | suitcase and smuggle it through customs? Or to babysit it on a | chartered flight and claim it was yours at customs? Because | those feel pretty different. | fragmede wrote: | I doubt the $1M in cash was in any way clean. | HWR_14 wrote: | I assumed they were offering him clean cash. Maybe it was a | "just help yourself to 1% of the bag". At any rate, the | perk of working for money launderers and literally | depositing the dirty money is you should be able to do the | exact same strategy with your million. | wcunning wrote: | The best thing I've read on this topic is from Matt Levine at | Bloomberg, restated in his newsletter on Wednesday: "In general, | the chief compliance officer at any company has a dial in front | of her that she can turn to get More Crime or Less Crime, and at | a normal company -- a bank, for instance -- her job consists of | (1) turning it most of the way toward Less Crime, but (2) not all | the way, and (3) acting very contrite when politicians and | regulators yell at her about the residual crime. "We have a zero- | tolerance policy for crime," she will say, and almost mean." | josephcsible wrote: | > At many institutions, one SAR is a non-event. Two, for a retail | client, means one gets a letter saying the bank wishes you the | best in your future endeavors and will not bank you anymore. That | letter will often mention that this is a commercial decision of | the bank and will not be reversed. Some clients receiving that | letter will, on attempting to open account at a different bank, | get refused because the first bank entered them into Chexsytems | as "account closed at bank's discretion" and the second bank, on | reviewing that entry, said "yep, we are not touching this hot | potato." | | > Frustratingly, regulators will say "Well, that is the bank's | decision. We didn't direct them to do that.", even though the | purpose and effect of AML regulations is causing a lot of | behavior not specifically asked for. Banks will, meanwhile, say | "Our hands are tied. Look at these enforcement actions. Clearly, | this is an unacceptable level of risk." And meanwhile, there is | an _actual person_ who has done _nothing wrong_ and now finds | themselves somewhere between greatly inconvenienced and frozen | out of the financial system entirely. | | Why is there so much opposition to "you can't have a bank account | anymore because when you had one, one of your checks would bounce | almost every week", but so little opposition to "you can't have a | bank account anymore for something that doesn't constitute proof | of wrongdoing"? | notch898a wrote: | Instigators of brutal mass violence and instability should be | eliminated from the financial system at all costs. Ban the US gov | from the finance system and their laundering of public money for | war crimes. | coderintherye wrote: | Excellent write-up. | | Key point is, no one truly looks at the efficacy of AML which | makes it more theatre than crime-fighting tool (not that it | doesn't fight crime, it just does not do so efficiently nor is it | likely the best way to do so, let alone us defining broadly what | crime actually is). | | If these systems were re-designed from the ground up, AML | procedures and policies would likely look quite different than | they do today. | miohtama wrote: | The problem with compliance is that it is pseudoscientific. | There is no independent oversight: all regulation and tools are | promoted by compliance companies selling those tools. There is | no penalty for punishing innocent. There is no reasonable cost. | More is always better. There is no court to complain or a | channel to opt out. | | It's a bit like antivirus on PCs: it is sold to you as a | scareware but in practice is snakeoil not really effective | against any modern virus or trojan. You stil bear the cost of | your PC slowing down 25%. | | Here is a good Forbes post by David Birch on the topic: | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbirch/2021/05/03/im-anti-t... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-10 23:00 UTC)