Is there a compelling reason why a criminal shouldn't be able to buy a house? Inconveniencing literally everyone over KYC, including non-criminals, to catch a 'criminal' who needs a place to live just seems absolutely insane. Go after people who you have probable cause have committed a crime, not ones you haven't.
If the buyer is going to...go to jail...or get murdered...or have some other unpredictable interruption in their ability to make payments- or just decide to defraud the lender- the lender is not to get their interest and principal. And maybe the house is not going to be maintained. The lien on the house is not really the backstop someone might think it is. Beyond that, foreclosing is terrible from a property valuation perspective.
It's not the criminality per se. It's the unpredictability that criminality necessarily beds down with.
Beyond that, when you are a lender who relies on the state for sanctioned violence, when you don't have your own goon squad or worse- lending to people who are not going to comply with or be responsive to state-sanctioned violence- you actually really cannot be more stupid with your money.
It was decided it was easier to trace the money than the drugs.
Buying real estate, like art, is a classical strategy to launder money.
I suspect you're confusing the meaning of criminal as being "that guy has a criminal record" instead of "that guy is actively committing crimes and wants to launder the ill-gotten gains".
It is something done to you. It doesn't matter whether you and the lender consent to it happening or not, the law _requires_ it. It's a search of your 'papers' at behest of government. Just because the end goal is elective doesn't mean 4th amendment is bypassed. For instance, buying a bottle of water isn't a 'right' but electing to do so doesn't allow the government to inspect your bank account, even by proxy (by requiring the seller).
yeah ok until a court challenge occurs
----------
>Both amendments are restrictions on government, not private entities.
Yes and who imposes the KYC requirement -- government or the private entity? Even when the private entities don't consent, the GOVERNMENT imposes the KYC search therefore 4th amendment applies. Private lender entity is acting as agent of the state who under force of law has been FORCED to follow KYC requirements.
Similarly, the 1st Amendment does not prevent victims of sexual abuse from signing a contract that forbids them from talking about it.
Both amendments are restrictions on government, not private entities.
You can't sign your children into slavery anymore in the US, but that's a special case that violates someone else's civil rights. Selling children and other people into slavery was legal for a big chunk of US history and was not fixed by the Constitution or the original Bill of Rights, but by the 13th Amendment.
For example, judges can tell convicts not to buy or carry firearms.
Felon in possession laws are also laughably stupid and a horrible example of government tyranny. Someone who say illegally harvested or transported a lobster or had pot at the wrong time in the wrong state isn't less deserving of defending his family than the guy with a misdemeanor for DUI. I applaud any felon who continues to carry, knowing if they otherwise carry themselves honorably they are extremely unlikely to be caught conceal carrying. Thankfully projects like the fgc-9 3d-printed gun make it effectively impossible to stop felons from acquiring firearms and restores their 2nd amendment rights.
It’s no more a “search” than the bank asking to prove your identity when opening an account.
---------------
>If you are stopped by the cops and they ask if they can search your car and you say “yes” then the search is valid. You are allowed to say “no”. They can force the search under certain circumstances.
OK I say no and the policeman has no probable cause to search. What happens next? Am I allowed to continue my elective activity of going down the street, or can the policeman pull out a gun and tell me I'm going to jail if I continue to electively head towards my destination? I think you know the answer -- when I decline the search it has no effect on my elective ability to complete my task of continuing on the roadway. Returning to the loan, the analogy here is I would be allowed to proceed even after declining KYC search.
>You are allowed to say “no”.
Going back to your example of the cops stopping you, when I say no I'm eventually allowed to continue on my way. I'm not turned around and stopped from completing my elective activity. By your logic government could just pass a law that whenever you elect to leave your house, your constitutional rights are waved -- that's just ludicrous and defies reason for having them in the first place. You're not allowed to say 'no' to following the KYC search and keep on going -- It's a forcible search.
If you try and get a mortgage loan and the bank asks for details you provide them then the “search” is valid. You are allowed to say “no”. They can’t force the search of you just walk away from the mortgage process.
Yes, you allowed to continue down the street.
“Oh that $5M I have? That’s not from selling cocaine that’s from when I sold my house!”
And it's not a few coke dealers, it's tens (hundreds?) of billions in illicit money being laundered by the major banks.
If it were voluntarily you could continue with the transaction if the two private parties were OK with going forward without KYC. The analogy here is when stopped by a policeman and asked to search, you can decline and continue walking on with your voluntary activity -- if the policeman told you that you had to turn around and stop your voluntary activity for declining the search then it would violate the 4th amendment and the search would be involuntary. In this case the voluntary activity is engaging in services that involve government-imposed KYC.