|
February 22, 2010
If massive surveillance does not stop Money Laundering, why do we have it?
Via Glenn Reynolds, I just watched "The Failure of Anti-Money Laundering Laws" -- a very disturbing video about money laundering. The facts and figures are appalling. As Dan Mitchell of the CATO Institute shows, over 18 million "suspicious transactions" are monitored annually, yet this yields only 900 or so actual money-laundering convictions. Not only are the banks burdened by enormous costs which they pass on to consumers, but customers and depositors (including missionaries and nuns) are treated as criminals. And it's not just banks. Jewelers and dealers in precious metals and precious stones are now required to be government rats. But the bottom line is that it catches very few actual money launderers. No doubt that's because the latter are in the business of money laundering, know the ins and outs of the law, and how to evade scrutiny. Watch it and weep: I have to say that I admire Dan Mitchell's patience. Every inch the reasonable man, he assumes the government is acting on good faith. This is reflected in the fair-minded questions he raises: Why does the government devotes so much time and resources to such a failed program? If catching money launderers is the goal and it isn't working, then why conduct massive surveillance on honest ordinary Americans? Why indeed. The fact that the program continues to be endlessly expanded despite such a huge rate of failure makes me suspect that catching actual money launderers might not be the primary goal. Rather, it all begs the question of whether it's simply an excuse for snooping on millions of Americans. I think the whole thing is an intolerable invasion of privacy. As far as I'm concerned, if you have no privacy in your finances, then it really isn't your money. But considering that the money laundering scheme was created by bipartisan legislation, where are we supposed to go for relief? posted by Eric on 02.22.10 at 12:56 PM
Comments
Probably the same thing they want to learn about guns. Where they are, where they go, who has what. Eric Scheie · February 22, 2010 02:10 PM It's usually about control. Or do you just try not to think about it so you don't kick your dog? Veeshir · February 22, 2010 02:19 PM Yes, mostly it is about control. We shouldn't think 900 convictions is too high or too low; we just don't know. Privacy is a vague right. Legally we have much less than we believe or may want. Ask those found out in the UBS tax evasion scandal recently. The government will keep monitoring because they don't stop until they must. e.g. if Yucca Mountain stays closed for a century some government workers and consultants will be paid to restudy the matter every year. KTWO · February 22, 2010 03:48 PM Y'all just don't get it. martin · February 22, 2010 05:09 PM I work in the brokerage industry and this has been one of my personal bugaboos for years. Anti-money laundering laws are merely symptoms of failure in other areas of policy, namely drug and tax policy. Most drug transactions are cash so the theory goes that if you make it hard to use cash maybe people won't sell drugs for cash... just brilliant. With tax policy, the IRS is wholly ineffective in dealing with persons who transact their otherwise lawful businesses with cash. The simple fact of the matter is that we would not need anti-money laundering laws if we legalized drugs and we eliminated the income tax and replaced it with a national sales tax. Tax compliance is much higher at the state level and the states collect nearly as much revenue as the feds with barely a tenth of the revenue collection costs. The reason is that the lions share of state revenue is from sales and property tax. Jardinero1 · February 22, 2010 06:36 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Almost pointless, but not completely pointless!
If massive surveillance does not stop Money Laundering, why do we have it? Beware, the dark forces of Saxonomics! One good drink deservesz aniother, ruhyight? "They have no right to tell me what to do." Words that suck DBTH I Am The Tea Party Leader How dare these uppity people show up at Tea parties! "Hit Back Twice As Hard"?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
If snooping is the goal of the legislation, what does the government hope to learn?