Not at all. I have authorised large wires without providing KYC or collecting KYC from the other party. My bank knows who I am. And I colloquially know the person I'm sending money to. But I haven't e.g. run them through OFAC.
You claimed "all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC." That's simply untrue. It's advisable to ensure someone is doing their KYC. But not necessary.
Here's an exercise, look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there. A lot of this compliance is driven through FATF actions that drive any country that wants access to anyone touching dollars or us banks to comply.
So you've moved the goalpost from all large transactions to transactions with explicitly sanctioned (EDIT: listed) entities.
The black list is nominally about weak AML and other factors. It's an example I used because it's a list of places on the shit list in part because they may have weak controls on KYC.
FATF is a big driver if imposing KYC everywhere that wants to interact with a US bank or USD. I'm trying to show you if you actually try to wire somewhere with bad KYC I think you're going to have issues.
Sure. There are three black list countries: North Korea, Myanmar and Iran. "Almost all large transactions" do not happen with people in these countries.
I think you're missing connecting the dots here. Countries with large USD transaction dependence comply with KYC precisely because otherwise they'd not be able to easily accept your wire transfer. They were pressured into it, this KYC requirement that is largely invisible to you. And the threat is well if they don't they end up like Myanmar which I promise your bank will be getting to know what the purpose and identity of any transaction you have with them is.
KYC dominates because of a worldwide regulatory effort, do this or you'll be cut off and it will be a nightmare to trade USD. Almost all large transactions go through KYC or reporting because it's been made difficult and usually illegal not to. Were this not the case you WOULD likely see lots of large transactions to Myanmar as various rich people use it as a haven for stashing funds anonymously ( although I think Panama etc would quickly steal the competitive edge).
I very much understand that, but you missed my point with that constraint: the point was that if your objection is that legal underlying activity can constitute money laundering, then to prove your objection you need to show an example of provably legal underlying activity.
On the other hand, if your complaint is that innocent-before-proven-guilty isn't being upheld by courts, that's a fine complaint, but an entirely separate one from money laundering.
> What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
In other words he did conceal illegal activity. Hence my point.
The point here is that an unwitting actor is somehow guilty if they did not do KYC. By your standard basically every gas station near the border is a money launderer, since they know damn well much of the cash they take and transmit is drug and cartel money.
And that's the genius of this line of reasoning. There is nary a dollar in circulation that hasnt been used in crime.
No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering.
>he example you cite
You asked for an example of proving something not illegal in court. You know damn well that's not the standard used in criminal law, it was a trick question which I tried to answer how I thought you meant to ask until I realized you were being duplicitous.
>without any illegal underlying crime.
This is a false understanding of money laundering. It isn't sufficient that there be illegal money involved, there should be mens rea of such. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience. Good day.
How did I move to money laundering? Are we reading the same thread? The comment I initially replied to specifically said, "Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering"?
> you were being duplicitous. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience.
It's quite the opposite, but your personal swipes are pretty uncalled for, so I won't continue.
Is it? I thought laundering money is only illegal if it's covering up illegal activity. Otherwise how is that different from e.g. the shell corporations that mask the sources of their funds.