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.
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.
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.
There's a poster on here called 'rabite' more commonly known as 'weev' who claims he was cut off entirely from the banking system despite being nominally innocent in the USA (he also claims he hates libertarians so I presume it's not part of a libertarian conspiracy). IIRC he moved to Transnistria (which has very loose money controls and basically controlled by the mob) and then bought apartments in Ukraine via cryptocurrency. Getting your account shut down and then receiving a check is definitely a real thing, if you're someone like 'weev' idk what you would do next, but it seems like he found one of the few ways around it.
He has no valid serious convictions that I'm aware of, the only one he has was reversed because it was prosecuted in the wrong jurisdiction (and aside, had some other serious appellate arguments to consider if they hadn't chosen jurisdiction as the reason to vacate).
> 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.)
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.