[tobyjsullivan]

I think both sentiments have merit and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Money stuff tends to follow power laws. The basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume.

Doing nothing would leave those 80% of offenders free to launder which seems bad. Meanwhile, it seems fair to call the measures mostly ineffective.

There’s also a cost to these measures. They frequently block or add friction for people just trying to do legitimate business. Is it worth it?

[harha]

Just makes the rest that can avoid it more powerful.

KYC doesn’t protect you from much, all sorts of scams still send money to bank accounts and you wont get your money back from the bank it was sent to even though they should have systems in place to know what is happening and where money is going.

And as you mention it doesn’t dissuade the powerful. So what’s the purpose other than control and bullying the ones who didn’t commit a crime?

[JumpCrisscross]

> basic, beaurocratic checks probably dissuade 80% of offenders while only stopping maybe 20% of the volume

Concentrating illicit behavior into fewer nodes also makes whacking them when necessary simpler. I doubt the concentration this paper notes would occur were Russian and Chinese oligarchs able to hold dollars without KYC.

[notch898a]

Just as likely IMO is that the 20% are using regulatory capture to stomp out the 80% and consolidate their business and create even more effective crime.