| It also is just a misleading set of complaints by a bunch of activists. > CASSARA: ... overseas doing training, talking about the importance of cracking down on money laundering. And I would invariably have a student or a colleague come up to me and say, “Yeah, Mr. John, I hear you, but we’re conducting a money laundering investigation in my country, and it goes to your country, it goes to the state of Delaware. We can’t get any information about this company. Can you help us?” There was nothing I could do, and I was just embarrassed. Just embarrassed. If these overseas people really did trace money to Delaware then they would not have a problem getting the beneficial owners because banks are required to store it under the customer due dilligence rule. If you say "well they may have given the banks misleading information" then there's no reason to think they would have given the government the correct beneficial ownership information either (courts in some circuits have held giving fake KYC data is bank fraud [punishable by up to 30 years in prison] whereas the penalty for deliberately submitting false information under the Corporate Transparency Act will be 3 years). > WEITZMAN: ... Why would we set up a bifurcated system like that? Only because Delaware doesn’t want to add another question to its form, “Who are you?” And then ask its registering agents to verify that you are who you say you are. > CASSARA: The bottom line is it comes down to money, okay? Half the reason the registry was established was so that it would be *unified*. If states (plus the various territories of the US) were storing ID information all on their own special systems it would delay the implementation of the registry by decades. So they made one federal government registry. Yes, there's a trade off, but the alternative is no registry. |