Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

They usually do this when they suspect there's money laundering going on, usually due to drug dealing. which, you know, DOES happen on Bitcoin exchanges.

View on HN

Of course. And it happens on an even larger scale in the legacy fiat banking system [0], but when caught, "offenders" continue conducting business as usual after they pay a small tribute.

[0] One of many examples: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...

They aid criminals knowingly, and just get a slap on the wrist when they get caught:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-ba...

Yes, because Cash is not used to launder money - nor would they ever ignore their own policies.

Oh, wait --

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-usa/hsbc-draws-line-...

So it's okay for a bank to do it, but not a person? It's okay for a bank to take advantage of fraction reserve and lend out and help a criminal org launder money?

Yes, this case they the bank, was caught, but not suddenly.

https://www.ccn.com/jamie-it-aint-bitcoin-jp-morgan-involved...

Drug dealing is the lowest of the totem pole, there are banks out there that actively take Iran and N. Korea money and they are under sanctions.

The percentage of cash that's used for criminal activity is much smaller than the percentage of BTC that is used for such.

I'm including darknet markets, ransomware, and outright exchange thefts in this.

~170 billion USD worth of BTC exists.

~9 billion USD worth of BTC has been stolen from various exchange hacks.

~140 million USD worth of BTC has been stolen through ransomware attacks.

... And as for commercial transactions:

Darknet markets make up ~40% of all non-theft, non-exchange related BTC commerce. [1]

Cash may rule the drug world in absolute numbers, but in relative numbers, the overwhelming majority of cash is used in the real economy. When nearly half the BTC that's used to transact is used for illegal purposes, it's pretty easy to see why banks aren't interested in touching it. Why risk losing your banking license, for collecting fees from such a tiny market segment?

[1] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-cryptoc...

Are we ready to remember Chase owned assets smuggling cocaine?

I don't understand this 'past sins' accounting in the thread. It's not 'wolf of main street' for a reason. Sure there are the bean counters in banks, but they also hire people on the ragged edge of sanity in risk management, making giant bets on incomplete information and parlaying those into more bets before the grand settling comes around. It's like those old-school cartoons of someone running across a footbridge just fast enough to stay ahead of its collapse.

The idea that a few of them aren't going to break some laws is kind of laughable. The only problem is whether or not they are penalized.

What is accounting without a history to account for? It’s a part of their living history, similar to Quaker Oats having a history which includes participating in the Manhattan project. I guess I don’t understand why we’re discouraged from including history when we talk about living and breathing companies. Should it be saved for when the company no longer exists? How do we make them accountable when they are gone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com