[runako]

> we have observational evidence to answer the question.

Isn't the point that the observational evidence amounts to the companies in question steer clear of illegal behavior?

There are anti-money laundering laws, so banks institute procedures to help them comply. Yes, we expect companies to change their processes so they don't break the law. That's the point of the law.

I am confused with what you think companies should do in this situation. Expose themselves to legal and civil liability? Or change their behaviors so that close scrutiny indicates they are trying to comply with the laws and any bad actors acted against internal procedure?