Comment by onetimeusename

Comment by onetimeusename 3 days ago

87 replies

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.

pjc50 3 days ago

> 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.

  • tzs 2 days ago

    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...

    • tastyfreeze 2 days ago

      > I vaguely remember being asked what the sources were for the money in my IRAs

      That is the issue. Its none of their business where your money came from. The collected information will eventually be abused as evidenced most recently by Canada's trucker bank freezes.

    • jgilias 2 days ago

      Not in the states, but. Just yesterday I went to a Toyota dealership to take a look at a Yaris with my retiree mom. During the usual sales talk, the rep casually dropped that there’s an AML form that needs filling in if the sales go through.

      For a fucking Toyota Yaris. Bought by a retiree. Who’s going to be paying it through the banking system where they already have KYC, AML, and all of her financial history.

      If that’s not overreach, I don’t know what is. And… who elected the people who came up with this? (That’s a rhetorical question)

      • ic_fly2 2 days ago

        The Yaris is more expensive than 10k.

        Simple as that. Allow people to shift value in larger units without AML and the crooks will use that route.

        The AML form will not be the most unpleasant part of buying a Yaris.

        • jgilias 2 days ago

          It’s a reliable car with a ten year warranty that doesn’t break the bank, and fits her use cases perfectly. What’s not to like!

      • yourapostasy 2 days ago

        > ...an AML form that needs filling in if the sales go through...If that’s not overreach, I don’t know what is.

        Absent a complete dismantling of AML oversight (and I do have empathy for those free market purists who want to wholesale toss out KYC and AML, but for now in practice we have to deal with what are on the books), these are difficult use cases to address. These kinds of edicts don’t usually say, “any retirees buying even economy cars must fill this out”, it is usually broadly applied like, “all car dealerships must do this for all transactions no exceptions”. And these laws are often a lagging reaction to various sham transactions uncovered as a result of crime busts.

        Once you start weaving “reasonable” exceptions to address the overreach, the scammers start to come up with sham transactions that fit the exceptions filter. It’s a pretty fascinating problem.

        There are many who would still object to a system where your mother doesn’t fill out a form. Instead her banking app pings her to confirm that she is purchasing a Yaris from the dealership (looking at the other comments here, it seems anonymous large transactions scattered through many people with otherwise clean records are a common laundering pattern, so metadata on the nature of the transactions might be one way to counter that kind of structuring, but alas that’s overreach for many), and uses her financial history in the background as the AML controls rails.

        I’d love to see AML professionals participate in this thread to help us learn what they’re really facing. Assuming we have to put up with it for the time being, might as well design and make its implementation as low friction for lawful people as possible.

        • jgilias 2 days ago

          I get what you’re saying. They probably only care about people coming in buying Lexuses paying cash. But to streamline things, as well as not discriminate Lexus buyers or cash, it applies wholesale.

          I’m very critical of the system in general. It’s an extra-legal way to “fight” crime, that weaponizes private enterprises against their will, inverts the burden of proof, and at the end of the day just doesn’t work. Because, obviously the cash for buying the Lexus came from a completely legal casino payout.

      • [removed] 2 days ago
        [deleted]
      • [removed] 2 days ago
        [deleted]
  • Der_Einzige 2 days ago

    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.

    • pjc50 2 days ago

      That's the American response to mass shootings: ignore them and change nothing.

      • MarkusQ 2 days ago

        No, sadly the American response is to advertise the idea of mass shootings and run detailed how-tos for any potential copycats out there. We obsess over the shooter's motivation and shower more attention on him then he'd ever gotten in his whole life.

        Ignoring them would actually be better than what we do.

nine_k 3 days ago

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.

  • lotyrin 3 days ago

    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.

    • nine_k 3 days ago

      Yes. Sadly, 9/11 is the classic case of terrorists having won :(

      • orochimaaru 2 days ago

        Is it though? I mean the US supported Bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians. Essentially we had a pet snake and complained when it bit us.

        I think that the same case with Hamas which I believe was a mossad creation.

        Most of these problems are self inflicted.

      • gambiting 2 days ago

        Well, no, not really - Bin Laden's stated goal was to commit attrocity so great against the American people that they will have to look into who those people are and why they did it, at which point hopefully they will discover their own government's work in the middle east and rise up against the government in protest.

        Obviously, that didn't happen - I don't think your average American had any interest in looking into any of it, they just went "Arab people bad, let's invade", and of course accepted even greater invigilation and intrusion into their daily life and travel than ever before, all in the name of "safety". So yeah, terrorists made our lives miserable - but they failed to achieve their goals.

      • kelnos 2 days ago

        It's not really that, though. The people who won are those in power, at home. They were handed a pretext to increase their control and surveillance of their citizens.

  • xenotux 3 days ago

    > 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.

    • AnthonyMouse 2 days ago

      > 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.

      Is it though? The entire bottom 50% of the population paid something like 3% of total federal income tax, by intentional design of the tax system. Babysitters don't owe any significant amount of taxes whether they report it or not and under some circumstances (e.g. EITC) their effective rate can even be negative. Forcing them to report the income can't seriously be the justification for all of this mass surveillance.

      > 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.

      That doesn't have anything to do with physical cash. You could do the same thing by borrowing at a negative rate and investing the money in any security/asset/commodity. Which is why negative interest rates are crazy and never really happened.

    • alexey-salmin 2 days ago

      > 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.

      This money was already taxed when the individual who pays the babysitter received it. It's questionable whether the society as a whole benefits from taxing babysitters.

      > 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.

      I'm not sure you'll gain much support for bespoke policies like that. Just reading this passage made me feel an urge to hide some cash under the mattress.

      • potato3732842 2 days ago

        >This money was already taxed when the individual who pays the babysitter received it. It's questionable whether the society as a whole benefits from taxing babysitters.

        Replace babysitter with any government regulated and licensed profession and the motives become clearer. The government gets power by forcing things above the table because once above the table you can be forced to transact with who they want and how they want and those parties then become dependent upon government to a degree.

        There's no such thing as cash under the table land surveying, for example.

      • danaris 2 days ago

        > This money was already taxed when the individual who pays the babysitter received it.

        And the money the retail clerk gets paid was already taxed when the customers spent it at the store. No, wait, it was already taxed when they got paid it! No, wait, it was already taxed when the customers of their employers spent it! No, wait——

        ...This whole idea of "money getting taxed multiple times" being a bad thing is absurd. Of course any given dollar going through the economy is going to get taxed many times. It's not about the dollars; it's about the transactions. And, ultimately, it's about funding the government so it can actually provide services, from sanitation all the way up to the military.

        (Note that this is not an attempt to say that "the more taxation, the better"; that's obviously absurd, too. There are different levels of taxation that make sense for different people, different countries, different transactions, and different economic circumstances. There is no one simple magic rule you can follow that will always make things better when it comes to taxation, any more than there is with anything else economic or political.)

    • Imustaskforhelp 2 days ago

      Yes lets tax these small transactions so that we can go back and give the tax cuts to the billionaire class.

      I think that capitalism has strayed away from its original goal. We have basically parasites in the current ecosystem leeching off of either land rent or being billionaires imo.

      But no it feels like we don't discuss it, we will all be ever so radicalized about something that happened on twitter etc. that we are forgetting the issue of classes.

    • tomrod 2 days ago

      Once again, Georgism/land value tax is the superior tax policy. Simpler enforcement.

      • Imustaskforhelp 2 days ago

        Man I wanted to write about georgism (see my comment on the parent's post where I talk about land parasites)

        I am such a big georgist. Seriously, I might genuinely cry seeing how georgism isn't being implemented. it is one of the most superior policy systems but the parasites own so much that we don't even discuss about it

        I was talking to my friend about georgism when he asked me if I was a capitalist/communist.. Basically in the end he just said, that he doesn't know about economics... so he doesn't know and they wanted to change the topic I feel like this might be a major hurdle where people think that economics is some huge mumbo jumbo when I feel like georgism and (index funds?) are two things that almost everyone should know given how simple they are.

      • mothballed 2 days ago

        Tariffs also make sense, since all that stuff is going through and declared to customs anyway, although it might be an economically inferior mechanism.

        Either way the income tax is one of the most dystopian ways to collect tax as it pretty much relies on mass surveillance of domestic activities to be implemented fairly or effectively.

  • LocalH 3 days ago

    Control

    • nine_k 3 days ago

      My point that authorities already exercised enough control over normal citizens anyway. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and never cared to have a bank account in Switzerland, let alone an anonymous bank account.

      But the few certain Americans, and especially non-Americans, who did apparently bothered the US administration enough.

      • alexey-salmin 2 days ago

        Nah, it's always the middle class that gets screwed. Poor can't be squeezed for more, rich have resources to fight back, the middle class ends up paying for everyone.

        • Imustaskforhelp 2 days ago

          Exactly! This is so so true that words can't explain it. The middle class gets extracted as much as they can. I think we middle class are treated as cash cows.

      • kelnos 2 days ago

        I think you're missing the point. I honestly don't think the rich people with hidden bank accounts really bothered those in power that much. Why would they; those people are their friends, in many cases.

        People in power want more power. They want more control, even over average, law-abiding people. They want to moralize and tell you what you should be buying and consuming. Power over others is the goal; it's not incidental. The random Swiss bank account holder is the pretext, not the reason.

  • sneak 3 days ago

    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.

    • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

      > If you can make private and uncensorable payments, you can pay an army.

      Just in case people thinks this is far fetched...

      Several countries in latin america are actually narcostates disguised as democracies. The drug cartels make so much money they can afford to have their own military forces, not rarely trained by actual soldiers who deserted for better pay.

      I live in one such country: Brazil. We have a couple massive organized crime gangs which dominate huge amounts of territory. They have their own governments, their own laws, their own tribunals, they even collect taxes from their subjects. They essentially pulled off a stealthy, undeclared secession.

      I gotta admit I have a certain respect for these drug gangs... They are an example of the power afforded by real freedom. Instead of waiting for the government to solve their problems, they had the balls to arm themselves to the teeth and seize what they wanted, like it or not. They exercised the freedom to build a new system that benefits themselves to the detriment of the society that shunned them. That's the freedom governments cannot tolerate. The freedom to replace them.

      • jcul 2 days ago

        Would love to read more about these shadow states, these undeclared secessions. I've often wondered about cartels in countries like Colombia and Mexico and how they interact with the Government. I never thought about places like Brazil. Would welcome any recommendations on the subject.

        • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

          It's difficult for me to provide sources because almost everything I've read about these gangs is in portuguese.

          English Wikipedia has surprisingly detailed and well referenced articles on these organizations:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comando_Vermelho

          > Individuals that fail to comply with the group's "discipline" are judged by the "crime courts", with sentences that can range from beatings to summary executions.

          > Rather than expanding by territorial conquest alone, the PCC is able to develop its illicit activities more efficiently by focusing on the regulation and control of markets combined with a monopoly on violence and discipline.

          Pretty much a parallel state.

          Just yesterday I was reading about how the drug gangs killed some electricians tasked with shutting off the electricty of a gang member for lack of payment. Another gang launched their own ISP which they forced their subjects to pay for and use, our FCC equivalent ANATEL was trying to disconnect them.

          "Undeclared secession" is just my interpretation of the situation. They dominate territories to the point brazilian police cannot freely operate without significant risk of death. Without police, nobody can guarantee brazilian rights and enforce brazilian laws. Without rule of law, is it really brazilian territory? I think not.

      • bawolff 2 days ago

        This is kind of how all gangs work. The narco gangs were just so profitable they were able to take it to the next level, but even if you look at organized crime in the usa in the 40s, its still kind of a shadow state, just on a smaller scale.

    • mothballed 3 days ago

      17% of the USA smokes weed (makes them a prohibited possessor), 8+% are felons, DV convictions are harder to find but incredibly common, 4+% of USA are immigrants who have no right to bear arms (illegal or non-immigrant visa).

      So maybe 1/4 or more of the adult USA is explicitly barred from the right to bear arms. When you consider those same people would have been much of the ~3% that had high enough risk tolerance to fight the American revolution, basically the USA has barred a very large proportion of those with the risk taking temperament that would enable them to become part of the ~3%.

      They've effectively made it illegal for revolution type of risk taker to have arms unless those risk takers used the police/military as that outlet. Note this is a relatively new development -- the M1 carbine was invented by a prisoner inside a prison!

      • novok 3 days ago

        If you knew the attitude those people had towards having "illegal small arms", you'd realize that isn't much of a barrier. It's kind of like the equivalent of bit torrent for them. Often it's easier to buy an illegal gun even if they are legally allowed to than to buy it legally used or new. They only avoid it because it's a conviction escalator if caught.

        Also you can own guns on a non-immigrant visa as a resident if you have a local hunting license that are pretty easy to get and maintain. Even non residents can with hunting trips.

        • [removed] 3 days ago
          [deleted]
    • nxobject 2 days ago

      > it is also why the United States explicitly protected it: to specifically prepare for (and protect the right to) violent revolution.

      How is the right to violent revolution prepared for and protected in the US?

    • wslh 2 days ago

      You are forgetting the vast quantity of mercenaries that exists around the world. It is possible to build an army nowadays, drug dealers, and other groups can. They will not directly confront a country. Don't forget cybersecurity where relatively few people can attain a lot of power.

  • csomar 2 days ago

    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.

deepsun 3 days ago

To be fair Switzerland really did (does?) help to launder a lot of money for terrorism.