US state regulators fine Block Inc $80M for insufficient AML controls
finance.yahoo.com
finance.yahoo.com
My favorite example is how banks are required to file secret "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) about their customers. Even knowing about the existence of SARs can be grounds to get a SAR written against you. How's that for thoughtcrime?
Link: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371476
One of these eMoney services just recently lowered the threshold for them feeling compelled to bother you for proof/more info to a couple hundred dollars.
Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.
No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."
The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.
They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.
The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.
They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.
All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove