US state regulators fine Block Inc $80M for insufficient AML controls(finance.yahoo.com)
finance.yahoo.com
US state regulators fine Block Inc $80M for insufficient AML controls
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/state-regulators-fine-block-inc-213502848.html
4 comments
AML - Anti Money Laundering
If you have too much free time, it may be worth reading the (long) "Debanking and Debunking" essay for an exploration of all of the perverse and bizarre behaviors that result from banks' fear of AML/KYC regulatory action.
My favorite example is how banks are required to file secret "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) about their customers. Even knowing about the existence of SARs can be grounds to get a SAR written against you. How's that for thoughtcrime?
Link: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371476
My favorite example is how banks are required to file secret "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) about their customers. Even knowing about the existence of SARs can be grounds to get a SAR written against you. How's that for thoughtcrime?
Link: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371476
SARs are nothing new, and the limitations and what triggers them keep changing.
One of these eMoney services just recently lowered the threshold for them feeling compelled to bother you for proof/more info to a couple hundred dollars.
One of these eMoney services just recently lowered the threshold for them feeling compelled to bother you for proof/more info to a couple hundred dollars.
I lost my cash app account to "gambling or against TOS" because whatever blockchain analysis they did found that it touched something they didn't like.
Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.
No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."
The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.
They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.
The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.
They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.
All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove
Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.
No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."
The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.
They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.
The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.
They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.
All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove