Are you suggesting that my post is part of some sort of conspiracy of people pointing out the way AML regulations work?

Not necessarily yours but yes, there's a weird lot of "AML sucks so hard so don't bother". Without suggesting what better way to approach the problem of fighting criminality[0]

If you want a precise criticism of your post, I gave it, in maths. Your figures don't seem credible and you gave no backup of them.

[0] Which eg, HSBC seems happy to indulge in while others supposedly on the side of law & order let it.

My numbers were made up - they are illustrative. To rephrase that without numbers: "because banks are responsible for all AML, because all financial transactions go through banks, and even if you are very diligent in reviewing transactions, you will still miss a lot." Is that better?

My post didn't say AML sucks so hard so don't bother. It says AML=good, but AML=imperfect so there will be misses.

And as another person in the thread pointed out, the article is based on Suspicious Activity Reports submitted by banks to regulators

Don't make up numbers. Invented stuff is not illustrative, it makes you look ill-informed.

> "...you will still miss a lot"

What is 'a lot'? 2%? 20%? 85%?

> My post didn't say AML sucks so hard so don't bother

I quote: "The only way to eliminate money laundering completely is slow down the system so much that it’s literally unusable."

which is not the same as "...but AML=imperfect so there will be misses"

What little AML I've seen is about automated checking. Conmputers do it not people except when something is flagged. You don't need to "eliminate money laundering completely", they can't and they don't try, it's a best-effort, due dilligence thing.