- Lawful evil AML companies
What are the better options?
Additionally, if you're within the majority of people who deposit money and lose it all you're not going to even know this unless you do some active research about the casino.
I don't know the actual law is, but it could be that the customer is the one who committed the crime of illegal gambling. If that's the case, it doesn't matter if keeping his winnings is legal or illegal, if the gambler brings suit he puts himself in legal jeopardy and I don't think the courts will enforce contracts associated with illegal activities (e.g. a hitman can't go to court to force his client to pay).
Somehow I doubt that causes many problems in trying to collect from clients.
[1] Which, yes, actually happens. E.g.: https://www.wect.com/story/22122424/man-calls-911-to-report-...
This is rare. It may be the effect. But plenty of financial institutions openly deny risky accounts; no need to needlessly spin wheels.
Your broader point is correct, however. Because of the risk, a lot will be demanded. Because of the reward, nobody is motivated to push back on compliance.
I have a funny passport so some institutions are often probing my life and the source of my funds. The criminal records translated to english (I’m not from an english speaking country, I don’t live or work on an english peaking country) happened to me.
I also had a chat with a polish woman who told me that UK banks required documents about her grandparents nationality when she went there for study circa 2014.
I am convinced xenophobia is alive and well through the financial system. Hell… even cheered by often progressive people who thinks the AML/KYC framework is protecting their lands from foreign barbarians.
It's really not. You don't make money by unnecessarily turning business away.
Go read patio11's AML article again. He gives examples. And says he has personally experienced it.
More importantly he explains why it happens. And expresses a wish for more scrutiny on how AML works in practice, because the common result has some bad effects.
Here is his explanation. Having regulators crack down on you is bad for business. Which they will do if money laundering is found. And money launderers actively want to bounce money between different organizations in different legal jurisdictions. Therefore if someone wants to send money to a different country, particularly if they look like they might be hard to find if regulators decide to ask hard questions, they get arbitrarily increased scrutiny. The result of which is indistinguishable from xenophobia. (Which may also be involved.)
Yeah, but it's not xenophobia: it's mandatory compliance activity associated with a framework that - if it did not exist - banks would not do. Motives matter. Xenophobia wouldn't be distributed in accordance with weak national finance controls etc.
But in practice it is set up and carried out by people who often have some level of personal xenophobia. Thereby generating an institutional cover for personal feelings. The extent of this is impossible to verify. But certainly more than zero. And, anecdotally, likely far more than zero.
That the policies are not simply distributed in accordance with weak national financial controls is demonstrated by the fact that Patrick McKenzie (US citizen) has encountered these problems multiple times while trying to get Japanese banks to deal with US financial institutions. Japan does not doubt that the USA has strong national financial controls. But "foreigner wanting to deal with foreigners" still generates heightened scrutiny and sometimes real problems.
US citizens have the opposite problem, FATCA, that makes overseas institutions allergic to doing business with them. I lived in Japan for four years and had absolutely zero problems with banking (including overseas fund transfers both inbound and outbound; getting credit cards; leasing a car), but I have a UK passport.
also agree on the xenophobia -- but instead of culture this is turf wars over control of large dollar trade over time
There was almost certainly something crooked though: The account had a monthly fee, but almost anyone can get an account with no fees if they know about them.
He points out that the US financial system is squeaky clean. Oligarchs wind up in prison because they think they can pull the crap in New York that they pull in London.
But outside the financial sector it’s the 100% opposite. Americas permissive corporate transparency lets assets vanish.
The best example: if you want to get a mortgage to buy a house you have submit to a financial strip search. But if you want to buy a house with bags of cash, you don’t even need to give your name.
What is this an example of? You are submitting a financial strip search because the lender wants to ensure the borrower can pay the debt, not to ensure they are a criminal or not.
And that is because prior to 2008, lenders were giving out loans to people with zero underwriting, hence the cascading defaults, and then financial crisis, which led to more regulations on proper underwriting.
The bank would report it, and in theory the feds could track down Periwinkle LLC.
But tracking down holding companies consumes precious resources, and would be strategic, not just legal, decision.
The US is obsessed with having a clean financial sector, but doesn’t care one jot or tittle about corporate transparency.
Better to make finance focus on ensuring there are quality, documented links where legally required... and then perform the judging elsewhere (e.g. legal system, FBI, journalism).
That the US (and especially certain states) permits opaque corporate structures is a different problem.
(1) is probably not good for that country, but do other countries care? To some extent, this is just colonialism by proxy: extracting wealthy inequitably from a foreign country. Historically, few third party countries take issue with that, when they're the winners.
(2) is where the more interesting point is. Does the country accepting the money net benefit, or net loss? Aka the London banking question in a nutshell.
I'd argue that if money is political power (it is) and corrupt money can't be firewalled (it can't), then it's net loss.
Inevitably and especially if we're talking lifestyle roots (e.g. property, establishing a home, etc), that corrupt money corrodes government and civil systems in the banking country. At minimum, because the wealthy corrupt people bring their expectations and behavior with them!
In practice though that’s exactly what happens. Banks have to look for transactions that are potentially illegal (including OFAC and AML). And the banks not only report but have to block some of those transactions or they become liable for the initial crime (if it existed at all).
And 9x/10 when you track down Perwinkle LLC you'll find that it's owned by a couple American brothers who own a successful regional HVAC business and everything they are doing is legal.
People love to act as if all this offshore stuff is frequently closely connected to illegal things but if you just randomly pull samples you'll be hard pressed to find anything that isn't just a case of someone completely legally doing what the law incentivizes.
There was a minor scandal a while back when it became clear Queen Elizabeth was using exotic techniques to hid her assets.
She wasn’t doing anything wrong. She just didn’t want people conflating her private assets with her royal persona.
Even Jeremy Corbyn (socialist, republican, then-head-of-Labour) didn’t criticize her for it.
She just didn’t want the public snooping in her private business.
I got a "no-doc" non-conforming FHA loan back then. They fucking strip searched me. It was not easy--I still have PTSD from it. That same loan is still available on the market.
You also need a citation on your reason for the financial crisis of 2008.
I had to walk away from my home BECAUSE of the financial crisis (after having paid down 90% of the principle). Was it triggered by defaults or the credit default swaps themselves? Sure, maybe some bad loans were floated,but the sophisticated, hot off of the regulation preventing it, people in New York started gambling on the plebs losing their homes. Well, a few plebs (really, over-leveraged affluent people) lost their homes, and a cascading effect of credit default swaps came due and spun out of control. The crisis was directly caused by Bill Clinton signing a bill that removed key regulation that would prevent the very thing that happened: Gambling on Wall Street.
So STFU.
It's unreasonable to blame one source for something that metastisized over years, involving most parties in the financial sector, until exploding.
Banks could have chosen not to do this business or to hedge their risk in a better way. Credit ratings agencies could have shown some independence and objectivity. Derivatives buyers could have done more due diligence on what they were buying. Home buyers could have looked at the market and said "This is way too hot, and the party can't go on forever."
Deregulation handed everyone rope, including us, and we all hung ourselves.
It stings when you get personally @+$#ed, and it feels good to blame massive, systemic failures on one source, but they're systemic failures for a reason -- because the entire system was culpable.
This is a general comment, nobody is saying every bank required zero documentation.
> I got a "no-doc" non-conforming FHA loan back then. They fucking strip searched me. It was not easy--I still have PTSD from it
I cannot imagine how bad some forms and id checks would have to be to give me PTSD.
> So STFU.
Not useful.
But insurance doesn’t have “know your customer” like banking.
If a customer commits a crime, we just don’t renew (unless we do). If a customer commits a crime and expects us to insure the criminal act, we refuse (unless we don’t).
Mortgage companies can issue small print dealing with much of legitimate financial uncertainty. Most mortgages require several types of insurance (title insurance, home insurance, and mortgage insurance).
If the financial strip search was about underwriting, it could be done in a way that didn’t require tons of paperwork from the customer.
But it’s about complying with “make sure your customer isn’t a criminal” laws.
Then he is incredibly naive. See Wachovia and HSBC's US operations getting caught laundering for Mexican cartels
This stuff is unfortunately pervasive in the global financial system
That boils down to US conflict with Russia. Europe didn’t have a beef in this until the Ukraine invasion.
I’m not sure how much of it is current in light of the sanctions. The big example it uses (90% of the book) is Khazakhstan.
From what I’ve read more recently, many rich/middle class folks in Latin America are moving to the US. If they’re businesses so much as look at drug money, and then we much as look at an American bank, they can wind up in a US prison for a long time.
So they just move to America to get away from drug gangs.
The US does not f*ck around with criminal financing.
Why doesn't it provide information in return? Well, only specific bank accounts are subject to FACTA:
- Accounts of individuals who are not US taxpayers.
- US deposit accounts of individuals and entities that are not US taxpayers to which US income flows.
And certain types are exempted from the data agreement:
- US corporate accounts, even when foreign companies hold these US accounts.
- Investment accounts and custodial accounts (of individuals and entities), even when they are a resident in the FACTA partner country. This is true, as long as the custody account doesn't have income flows into this accounts (eg dividends or interests). Example: A German has a custody account in the USA and holds German shares in it. This data won't be disclosed to Germany. You probably know where this leads to...
If you think you are now in the need for an American corporate account, don't worry, we got you covered! Delaware offers setups without the need to file yearly lists of managers, owners (shareholders), directors, or members.
In case this is not sufficient for you because tax evasion isn't enough, and you are doing some really shady business, don't look further than this weird US arm called “Puerto Rico”. It is common knowledge among wealthy (and fishy) Europeans and Russians to just park your money there. Banks like the Euro Pacific bank allowed you to keep your money safe, and even allowed you to trade stocks electronically through IBKR without any disclosure to anyone. (ok, maybe the EuroPac Bank was too well known for this because they had to close down, but don't worry, there are a bunch of alternatives like facebank).
Combining a PR bank account with a Belize company is also very popular for money laundering. You know, Stripe doesn't allow banana republics, but for whatever reason PR is allowed there.
The setup is to create a company in Belize with a heavenly tax rate of 0% and just laundering through it to your bank account in PR. This is mostly used for companies who straight up do illegal things, but you know, you can sell virtual stuff all day long and it scales infinitely.
My personal opinion is that the USA doesn't want to disclose anything to third parties because they know too well that too much transparency would make them unattractive as the financial centre of the world. While they want to nail down US tax evaders at all costs, they have little motivation to fuck around with the billions of foreign capital in the US by providing too much information/support to foreign tax authorities.
Well, only specific bank accounts are subject to FACTA:
...
Investment accounts and custodial accounts (of individuals and entities), even when they are a resident in the FACTA partner country. This is true, as long as the custody account doesn't have income flows into this accounts (eg dividends or interests).
Unfortunately, I don't have a reference, as I was told this by an advisor from PWC a few years ago. I guess you could contact any good tax consultant, tell him the details, and let him look into it. I have no idea about how 401K works in the US.
Investment accounts and custodial accounts (of individuals and entities), even when they are a resident in the FACTA partner country. This is true, as long as the custody account doesn't have \*US\* income flows (eg dividends or interests).
But, if you don't have the before mentioned US income to your account, you are exempted from data sharing.
SWIFT and Swiss don't just give up client data easily and yet they did due to US had exact names and details of every transaction, I recall some said fibre optic was tapped. too bad I left London soon after GFC there was a tonne of high quality gossip fun times.
Money launderers don’t take out loans. Normal people do.
Man, for that brief shining window we really had perfection.
And crime has definitely gone up because of cryptocurrency. I'm not sure how much it has affected the more traditional sorts of crime, as I don't think it's much of a help in turning dirty cash into clean assets thanks difficulty of exchange and the ledger acting as "prosecution futures". But ransomware has grown massively thanks to cryptocurrency. And ransomware gangs have grown correspondingly in size and sophistication thanks to having all that money to spend.
The US mafia declined because of the rico act and the fact that there was less racism and better integration of italian americans. The current ethnic crime groups of today are different.
IMO AML is security theatre, much like the post 9/11 flying regulations making everyone's lives worse, especially if your name is Mohammed sending money to family back home in the home country.
I look forward to your proving these two very numerical claims. But you can't just count existing criminal proceeds. That'd be saying, "The current level of speeding is so low that we can get rid of traffic cops." You have to measure the crime prevented, too.
AML is a boil the ocean way to prevent crime, except the ocean isn't being boiled because there isn't enough energy to actually boil the financial system. Instead it just annoys everyone with the financial equivalent of the ineffective TSA, where the TSA's own auditors bring everything and anything through with ease.
With all the money and human time used to prevent crime via AML, that could've been redirected to far more productive things. Especially in a country like the USA, where crime prevention issues are fairly obvious but not acted upon, such as robbery, murder, assault, rape, car break ins, property theft, damage, etc in California which aren't things effected much by AML either way.
Very little separates the state from an organised criminal enterprise. A particularly cynical person might point out just how comfortably well the operating logic of states and large multinational corporations fits into the world of organised crime. The only thing that separates the two is legality.
Things like alcohol and marijuana have become legal, but I don't see much evidence that Budwiser/InBev is a mob front.
Real Estate provides a much easier method to move millions.
Very few transactions hit the CTR threshold at the time it was instituted. It was nearly $80000. Computerization was also very new so doing anything useful at scale with the records was difficult for the government.
I'm not a lawyer but I read RECAP and have read the appeals from a lot of these cases and very rarely were financial records mentioned as investigative leads. They almost always relied on informants who were a part of the scheme and electronic surveillance to figure out how the crime worked. Even now, how many criminal investigations do you think start from SARs? Obviously we'll never know because they don't release that, but I don't think there's any reason to think it is a substantial fraction. Money laundering in most cases nowadays is just tacked on after they discover that someone used money from the crime they already knew about.
And the status quo where the banks take a bigger cut to pay for their big compliance departments and the government takes a bigger cut to pay for auditing those compliance departments is somehow better?
X-percent not in your pocket is X-percent not in your pocket no matter how you cut it. At least in the proposed "stop giving a crap" case nobody will be denied access to boring routine financial products because they have a 3rd cousin with the same name as a Turkish mob boss.
That is nothing compared to the costs of crime in high-crime/high-corruption societies. And looking at dollars alone doesn't paint a true picture. Criminal enterprises work through violence and add risk throughout the economy. E.g., if your business is doing well, a protection racket is not going to take 1% and call it a day. They'll take everything they think they can get. And if not, they break your leg. That serves as a strong disincentive to creating successful businesses.
Do the FDIC have disputes with the OCC? Probably. But unlike criminal gangs, they don't settle them with shooting wars in the streets.
Is it really though? How much was the US (or any other equally developed country) losing to crime and corruption prior to all this KYC/AML BS? Not that much. Letting a mobster have a bank account doesn't magically turn your country into Nigeria. If anything it makes your country better because the mobster doesn't have to store that value another way and then protect it (with violence). >Criminal enterprises work through violence and add risk throughout the economy
So like government but with less abstraction?
> But unlike criminal gangs, they don't settle them with shooting wars in the streets.
Only because they don't have to. Being an above the table enterprise they can just go to the government court system and get their (credible threat of) violence that way.
All this violence you're complaining about w.r.t. organized crime is just their (low buck, because due process is expensive) way of settling business disputes.
It really is. People flee high-crime/high-corruption countries for good reason. They also have demonstrably worse economies over the long term. KYC/AML efforts are only part of the difference, of course. But we've ended up with KYC/AML because it's one of the least intrusive ways of keeping crime in check.
If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go live in a high-crime/high-corruption country and let me know how much you're enjoying the "freedom".
I can honestly see that this could be the case. But I can honestly see that it might not be. A related situation would be occupational licensing: maybe it saves society money, maybe it costs society money; how certain are we that we are at the correct balance?
Well occupational licensing is the same way. If there was even a shred of a farcical bad-faith argument that it saved money they'd be happy to spout it. The fact that the proponents don't even have that and instead shove appeals to emotion in your face tells you everything you need to know.
They turn away millionaire accounts all the time. You need to have many hundreds of millions under management for them to do their diligence so you can open an account.
Most accounts under 10 million cannot even get cleared to trade high risk options. No way in hell they'll skip AML checks.
When Australian companies offer shareholder deals (like capital raises, offering shareholders a chance to get in first on favourable terms) there is usually a neatly printed prospectus that has a couple of pages in very explicit language saying "this is NOT FOR AMERICANS. Please do not show this to a US citizen. If you are a US citizen, you must disregard this booklet!".
It always strikes me as unfortunate just how badly the US is locking themselves out of otherwise quite good investment opportunities. I always assumed that these service refusals were due to AML laws using logic similar to what you describe. It is always the US. We're ok with Europeans, Asians, Africans and South Americans.
Ivan, immigrant from Belarus who drives a bus and likes to withdraw cash from his <5000 euro account? Get this living liability out of my bank! I won't run a whole department or risk getting fined because some no name pauper. But since we can't just ban him let's just ask for ridiculous documents like proving the nationality of his grandfather (real story btw) or criminal records, translated in English, by an official translator.
That's basically AML compliance for you.