[barry-cotter]

> Whilst I agree with everything you say (quote?), you’re not meant to bank with unexplained[1] or unsavoury sources of funds.

Guilty until proven innocent is the legal basis for civil forfeiture too. So by supporting both depriving people of access to banking and criminalizing usage of cash you can fully drive them out of society.

[1] This is the guilty until proven innocent bit

[rich_sasha]

This is a bit different. It sounds like with US civil forfeiture you can just seize any and all assets merely because someone is accused of something unrelated. This I agree is awful.

Bank KYC is a bit different. A bank, certainly at this level, is supposed to know who you are and where your money is coming from ahead of setting up the account. They have to satisfy themselves it’s a legal source. If they become suspicious, they should tip off authorities who can investigate etc.

At no point here can the bank judiciously freeze your assets. All this should mostly happen before the bank even touches your money.

[salawat]

Actually, if you're on the OFAC list, many banks eill open sn account for you, and happily take deposits. They just will not let you withdraw. So Your claim that a bank cannot judiciously freeze your assets is a bit off.

And for the record, nanes going on the OFAC have blast radius. If the U.S. finds out terrorist X has an alias of Temperence Prudence, the other Temperence Prudence's out there can expect some disruption while compliance department's try to figure out if you're a terrorist or not. All without breathing a word of it to the customer.

I know, because I ended up having to troubleshoot that system. It is quite horrifying, and to say the least duplicitous.

[rich_sasha]

It’s not judicious of the banks to freeze assets, it’s set by government agencies. Banks just follow the rules.

I can well imagine the implementation of such rules is done badly, especially in US, but that’s a bit different to this sub thread I think.

[Teever]

Yes but a bank is supposed to do this because a law that was written to force them to do it.

There is not reason other than that, and it's circular logic to sidestep due process to point to the law that says that they have to do it as the reason they have to do it.

[tinalumfoil]

A bank is not legally required to refuse your money until you can prove you haven’t stolen it. A bank maintains very specific set of government mandated processes where if think something is suspicions they report it to the authorities.

Note the difference (1) if you deposit $50 the bank by default assumes you didn’t just murder someone and take their money, this is true even if you served a sentence for that crime and (2) the bank defers to the government on what to do, they’re not expected to run a parallel justice system figuring out who’s worthy for a bank account

[salawat]

They absolutely do have a parallel justice system of who gets to bank, and it's called OFAC, and the international sanction list.

[rich_sasha]

Neither is ram by banks, they are the recipients of regulation there, not creators.

[TomSwirly]

I am starting to believe now that you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

This has zero, nothing at all, to do with "guilty until proven innocent". Anonymous banking is simply not allowed anymore, because of literally trillions of dollars in crime money going through Switzerland. Now you are legally required to know your customer, even in Switzerland.

Forcing banks and customers to obey financial disclosure laws and punishing them if they break the law is how the law works.

If you or I walked into a bank with tens of millions of dollars in cash, we would be asked to show ID, and information about the deposit would be sent to the government because it's the law.

It strikes me that you just don't like the law and instead of saying that, you move the goalposts and pretend the law itself doesn't exist.