Hacker News Reader

This is clearly not true. Why else do organizations involved in large scale ML move to locations with more lax AML regimes? E.g. crypto in eastern Europe. If the risk of being caught was no deterrent, ML activity would be dependent on 'amount of launderable funds' and independent of AML regime - can you offer an argument showing this is true?

View on HN

> E.g. crypto in eastern Europe.

Ah the crypto boogeyman! That argument is ridiculous. The CIA factbook estimates that the proportion of the GDP linked to crime worldwide is 3% to 5%: that's 3 to 5 TRILLION USD directly linked to criminal activities.

Cryptocurrencies do not even register here. It's not even a drop in the bucket.

Moreover public ledgers are what law enforcement and IRS' employeees' wet dreams are made of.

One of the reasons it's so ineffective is that you can move to jurisdictions with different laws (or corrupt governments), so the law only negatively impacts innocent people in your own country, meanwhile criminals have stable alternatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com