> In what you describe the difference would be that HSBC doesn't get fined and neither HSBC or Revolut does any check. How does that help?
It would mean HSBC and Revolut would compete on a level playing field, and so would their customers, and ordinary businesspeople like OP wouldn't get randomly screwed.
(And sure, maybe a little more "money laundering" would also happen. But at this point the anti-money-laundering-financial-industrial complex has done far more harm to society than money laundering ever did)
yes. there exists a culture of "safetyism" that burdens society with excessive costs relative to the benefits achieved. This is, of course, starting from the (dubious) assumption that the stated objective of the regulation is the true purpose, rather than safety merely serving as a convenient, secondary goal.
This scenario has happened because of the regulations that banks have to follow. They freeze accounts and check payments more frequently now given the extra scrutiny demanded of them.
It would mean HSBC and Revolut would compete on a level playing field, and so would their customers, and ordinary businesspeople like OP wouldn't get randomly screwed.
(And sure, maybe a little more "money laundering" would also happen. But at this point the anti-money-laundering-financial-industrial complex has done far more harm to society than money laundering ever did)