It is quite far removed from what banks do.

For example, if a bank detects an anomaly, they report it. What they DO NOT do is transfer the suspicious funds to a police bank account.

What I'm saying is I think it _is_ a step too far. I also think it violates people's constitutional rights. But I don't think it's so different from already monitoring people's transactions.

A private organization monitoring transactions and reporting those to the relevant tax authority is "not so different" from police breaking locks open, taking cash without a warrant, and depositing it into the police bank account?

So just use a bank that won’t report it.

They are slowly arm-twisting those banks into reporting it.

Swiss banks ain't what they used to be. Cayman islands too.

Baffling. The bank can't keep your money if they think it's somehow ill-gotten, and the police can. It's a world of difference.

They only way a bank should send data to the government is if the government has warrant. The fact that this is not the case is a problem. Let's not normalize this overreach further.

Not what happens in reality. A transfer of $10,000 on a US bank account will trigger an IRS flag for example.