undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrich_sasha4y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

salawat4y ago

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_sashaOP4y ago

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.

Teever4y ago

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.

tinalumfoil4y ago

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

salawat4y ago

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

rich_sashaOP4y ago

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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

salawat4y ago

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

rich_sashaOP4y ago

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.

Teever4y ago

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.

tinalumfoil4y ago

salawat4y ago

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

rich_sashaOP4y ago

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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse