There are around a dozen or two banks that, if they were to come together, could have a centralized database that better tracked flows of money all around the world.
Note still that the scope of implementing, auditing, securing, and getting banks to reveal things that they likely consider very proprietary is already a monumental ask.
Still, I'd say the better argument here is that there should be a superior way for information to be shared in a more centralized manner.
Once that is done. Then maybe we can think about using a blockchain and decentralizing it.
It's a bit like CCTV - the crimes were recorded Blockchain or not.
But they were not prevented, and Blockchain isn't going to help with that.
From TFA "From about 2007 until 2012, Banamex USA, a Citi subsidiary, processed more than $8.8 billion in transactions with almost no oversight.".
> The cases you see at Bloomberg are well evidence > the crimes were recorded Blockchain or not
imglorp suggested "Anyone can audit the complete trail of funds from source to holding to destination.". Was this evidence you mention publically auditable (i.e. what imglorp's suggesting would help)?
> Blockchain isn't going to help with that
It's at least plausible that a publically auditable log would have helped spot these issues.
However, thank god, second gen. blockchain tech has ZKP which should keep us out of the clutches of governments for a tiny little while longer.
The challenge would be to get banks on board, because they're making so much off this ill gotten flow. Once there, their profit (interest and fees) would also be transparent to everyone, another reason they'd hate this scheme. But it would be good for taxpayers, governments, and honest bank consumers.