You would think then that the same logic would apply to something like SWIFT, but alas
"SWIFT itself does not monitor or control the messages that users send through its system and recognises that all decisions on the legitimacy of financial transactions under applicable regulations rest with the financial institutions handling them, and with their competent international and national authorities."
There have to be some limits to how big of a burden the government can put on people in the name of stopping money laundering, the current AML model has huge costs, in financial terms but also in terms of the invasion of privacy - if you've ever had to pass a more stringent AML check, you know how invasive and dehumanizing that is.
And it's not even working, estimates put the effectiveness of the current AML regime at less than 1% of money laundering being detected.
There have to be some limits to how big of a burden the government can put on people in the name of stopping money laundering, the current AML model has huge costs, in financial terms but also in terms of the invasion of privacy - if you've ever had to pass a more stringent AML check, you know how invasive and dehumanizing that is.
And it's not even working, estimates put the effectiveness of the current AML regime at less than 1% of money laundering being detected.
Stopping crimes should be the job of the police.