> much more financial surveillance for average citizens

As with the TSA, any system designed to filter "bad guys" ends up being a huge imposition on average citizens, because there's a lot more of them.

▲

tzs 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I can see how TSA is an imposition on a large number of average citizens. The Internet is telling me that in recent years (except during COVID) about half of Americans flew in the past year [1], which would mean each year about half of Americans have to deal with the TSA.

But with money laundering and KYC I'm having trouble remembering ever having to deal with them. What are situations where the average citizen finds them an imposition?

I vaguely remember being asked what the sources were for the money in my IRAs, but don't remember who asked or what I was doing with them. Maybe it was during an application for a home equity line of credit? Anyway, whatever it was I just told them (rollover from a 401k, money from my salary, and earnings from investments held in the IRAs) and they didn't ask for any proof or anything.

[1] https://www.airlines.org/dataset/air-travelers-in-america-an...

▲

tastyfreeze 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I vaguely remember being asked what the sources were for the money in my IRAs

That is the issue. Its none of their business where your money came from. The collected information will eventually be abused as evidenced most recently by Canada's trucker bank freezes.

▲

jgilias 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not in the states, but. Just yesterday I went to a Toyota dealership to take a look at a Yaris with my retiree mom. During the usual sales talk, the rep casually dropped that there’s an AML form that needs filling in if the sales go through.

For a fucking Toyota Yaris. Bought by a retiree. Who’s going to be paying it through the banking system where they already have KYC, AML, and all of her financial history.

If that’s not overreach, I don’t know what is. And… who elected the people who came up with this? (That’s a rhetorical question)

▲

yourapostasy 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> ...an AML form that needs filling in if the sales go through...If that’s not overreach, I don’t know what is.

Absent a complete dismantling of AML oversight (and I do have empathy for those free market purists who want to wholesale toss out KYC and AML, but for now in practice we have to deal with what are on the books), these are difficult use cases to address. These kinds of edicts don’t usually say, “any retirees buying even economy cars must fill this out”, it is usually broadly applied like, “all car dealerships must do this for all transactions no exceptions”. And these laws are often a lagging reaction to various sham transactions uncovered as a result of crime busts.

Once you start weaving “reasonable” exceptions to address the overreach, the scammers start to come up with sham transactions that fit the exceptions filter. It’s a pretty fascinating problem.

There are many who would still object to a system where your mother doesn’t fill out a form. Instead her banking app pings her to confirm that she is purchasing a Yaris from the dealership (looking at the other comments here, it seems anonymous large transactions scattered through many people with otherwise clean records are a common laundering pattern, so metadata on the nature of the transactions might be one way to counter that kind of structuring, but alas that’s overreach for many), and uses her financial history in the background as the AML controls rails.

I’d love to see AML professionals participate in this thread to help us learn what they’re really facing. Assuming we have to put up with it for the time being, might as well design and make its implementation as low friction for lawful people as possible.

	▲	jgilias 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I get what you’re saying. They probably only care about people coming in buying Lexuses paying cash. But to streamline things, as well as not discriminate Lexus buyers or cash, it applies wholesale. I’m very critical of the system in general. It’s an extra-legal way to “fight” crime, that weaponizes private enterprises against their will, inverts the burden of proof, and at the end of the day just doesn’t work. Because, obviously the cash for buying the Lexus came from a completely legal casino payout.

▲

ic_fly2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Yaris is more expensive than 10k.

Simple as that. Allow people to shift value in larger units without AML and the crooks will use that route.

The AML form will not be the most unpleasant part of buying a Yaris.

	▲	jgilias 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It’s a reliable car with a ten year warranty that doesn’t break the bank, and fits her use cases perfectly. What’s not to like!

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

Der_Einzige 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We need far more of a willingness to "bite the bullet" and accept that sometimes bad things happen, and after a bad things happens we can simply go back to how we were doing things before.

We don't need to constantly change and often times collectively punish society for one bad terrorist attack.

▲

pjc50 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's the American response to mass shootings: ignore them and change nothing.

	▲	MarkusQ 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, sadly the American response is to advertise the idea of mass shootings and run detailed how-tos for any potential copycats out there. We obsess over the shooter's motivation and shower more attention on him then he'd ever gotten in his whole life. Ignoring them would actually be better than what we do.