[buckminster]

I agree, but I feel that measures that are only available to the wealthy (like putting your finances behind an anonymous corporation) are making things worse. The powerful, who are in the best position to bring about change, are shielded from the consequences of the pervasive loss of privacy and so have little reason to do anything about it.

[nullc]

You don't need to be especially wealthy to own your home via a corporation. It's essentially a one time cost of a few hundred dollars plus a small annual registration fee.

Presumably this law still will be easily avoided by the sufficiently wealthy-- some kind of finance structure involving loans and whatever where a nominee is the legal beneficial owner. ... and outright criminals will just break it, because its not like violations of it will be detected quickly and if they are detected the criminals will already have worse problems.

Or just purchase a 'real' business that engages in some unrelated activity to own the property... Which is something just about every money launderer already does! It just has to be over the size threshold in this bill, essentially leaving this avenue open only to the wealthy.

[syshum]

The limits here speak to the exact opposite, it did not take a whole lot of money (a few hundred dollars) to create a fictitious entity to hold your home or other property so that is does not appear on public property tax records.

This was not a tool "only for the wealthy" and since the limits of the law are fairly low before the law no longer applies it is clear this law IS NOT targeting "the wealthy"