Comment by mothballed

Comment by mothballed 18 hours ago

6 replies

It can be hard to figure out exactly what is outlawed with banking interactions. It seems a lot of the KYC/AML stuff is based on industry best practices and guidelines. There's no law you need a state ID with address to open a bank account, but when I tried to open up a bank account without an address I found it basically impossible. The bank will then cite that these practices are what they're held to as law, because the law itself is vague and relies on more nebulous customs.

So what is called "guidelines" one day becomes legally binding later with no act of congress.

Unfortunately there's a massive swath of mere guidelines and regulation that end up having legal binding. For instance, a Navy sailor was recently sent to jail for 20 years for having gun parts that were cut up the wrong way, the "wrong way" being the right way with previous mere guidance and the wrong way apparently being the fact that some time since then the guidance changed but not the law.

potato3732842 18 hours ago

That's the whole point. They can't overtly outlaw things because aggrieved parties would sue and win. So they soft outlaw them with expensive record keeping requirements and ambiguity because no business big enough to win but smaller than a giant mega-corp will intentionally risk going toe to toe with the government in court as doing so would likely be financially ruinous.

And even if the government doesn't look like it's disposed to do that in your situation you're still sticking your neck out by deviating from the herd because then you can't screech "standard business practice" when some contrived chain of facts results in you fending off a civil suit for whatever reason.

This isn't just a banking thing or a guns thing, you see examples in every industry once you know the pattern.

  • mothballed 18 hours ago

    As long as the government only tazes your dogs and ruins your business, you can't even sue against the law even on constitutional grounds.

    See Knife Rights V Garland. []

    No one had been convicted in the past 10 years for violating the switchblade act, so the state ruled the law couldn't be challenged ("no standing"), even though it was actively being used to ruin people's businesses and raid their homes (the government would just give everything back a few years after doing so and not go through with charges).

    [] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...

    • potato3732842 18 hours ago

      Yeah, the .gov does that all the time. See every "basically Bruen v NYC" type case prior to Bruen.