beaglessss

Something like half of adults in Israeli controlled territory are disenfranchised. They're hardly a democracy imo.

A guy kidnapped in Iraq was jailed on return for back child support because he couldn't send the checks.

It's in the best interest of the child.

https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-ca...

Would make sense imo to auction them to the highest bidder and distribute it to the heirs. Or give the heirs shares of a corporation that holds the artifact.

I'm not sure about Indonesia government but I'm confident if my forefathers made artifacts and it got 'returned' to US gov what would happen is a bunch of rich city dwellers would get to see it in an exhibit somewhere, some director will see a fat salary and meanwhile I have no share or compensation nor practical ability to access the artifact.

The concern here seems to be longshoreman is one of the highest paid blue collar jobs; there is close to zero percent chance the middle age and older guys get anything like this again. It's quite dissimilar to something like a unskilled farmhand getting fired and then moving slightly up to maintaining farm implements or something.

Sucks for them, but they can't complain when they were happy to charge the poor and lesser working class through the nose to unload their goods. They can't both have their capitalism and eat it.

The reason you can move across the nation for a good wage is in part that jobs were shit canned when they become economically or technologically disadvantaged to more efficient alternatives. Your high wage was made possible due to firing lots of people.

We should thank our lucky stars if a robot takes all their job. That's progress.

I imagine they usually don't know. Some fraction of identities are real IDs taken advantage of by sanctioned entities. If you bank at all you knowingly accept some level of sanctioned entities, but often don't know what identity they operate.

Are you at least open to the idea that the major reason why many other nations like Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Panama, St Kitts came off the black list and into AML and KYC compliance is so they would have low friction wire transfers and banking in USD?

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).

One example is criminal pays a heroin addict for their real ID and then basically uses them as pass through nominee on the account.

No I haven't. For instance the nation of Myanmar is in the list. OFAC as far as I know would permit transmission to most people there

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.

Yes if you cutoff the first word it becomes untrue, how ridiculously disinguine.

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.

My response is civil rights should drive the tax man's behavior and not the other way around. I will accept a loss in efficiency of taxation.

The customer isnt charged, it is the bank/entity or persons there. Not legal advice but failure if AML and not collecting identifying information is charged under 31 USC 5322 under indictment I'm reading.

The law here notes even some CFRs are criminally binding, the CFRs explicitly require certain identification.

Banks are always doing business with criminals and sanctioned entities and they know that, although not always when and where.

The difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it. If the bank just gives each person a random number as their only identifier like the old swiss accounts, then they'll be warned sanctioned entities are using it and ultimately prosecuted when they fail to KYC (i.e. similar but but identical to CZ).

Your counterparty was almost certainly KYCd if the receiving bank deals in USD or receive from a bank in us jurisdiction.

>Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts

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.

Every single bank and person conceals illegal activity by your final sentence. You probably have sold something for cash bought by a drug dealer and unknowingly laundered drug money.

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.

Unless someone dislikes them, in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC (even though we all know sanctioned entities operate on white market using dark identity, so regular banks guilty too).

In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. 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.

I suspect a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile.

Almost all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC or reporting so the magic is the very act of privacy makes it illegal.

There is still an element of truth. If you don't provide KYC for a bank account there is now a crime if it is knowingly allowed. You could go offshore but now you need to report the account. You could form an anonymous LLC but law recently changed an now must report UBO to fincen.

You could store cash/gold in an anonymous safe deposit, but FBI raid and steal this. You cant fly with large cash because again feds steal it. You can't carry it out the country in large without reporting it.

Crypto, same story, KYC at the exits and P2P offramp actors getting treated as 'unlicensed money transmitter' etc which again triggers KYC.

Quickly you realize it's about shutting off all the exits of privacy, not money laundering which only has increased cost consolidating power to more dangerous organizations.

While AML regulations likely have an impact, imo their main secret motive is financial surveillance.

You could still buy it from a guy with a 40 gallon drum on a flatbed though. Cash only of course.

Legalizing floating market exchange rates.