Hacker News Reader

The US has not gone very far yet with their anti money laundering program. In Sweden, we have got to the point where one can only withdraw a maximum amount of $200/$1000 a day (it depend on the ATM, where common one is the $200 version). There is also a hard limit of $2000 a week.

Alternative, one can "request" a larger withdraw from the bank which means two consecutive physical visits to a designated bank office, with a week between, and during designated hours (10-14). At the bank, they may ask you questions regarding the nature of the money withdraw, and is allowed to deny you if they feel the answer is unsatisfactory.

As a side note, an ID is also always required for any money transfer no matter transaction size. They also removed the option for SMS payments (it was considered too anonymous). The effect from this have been that the most common form of donations to red-cross and the likes has dropped with 90%. Last, any transaction (all sizes) is logged and shared internationally with EU and US.

Wow that's very little money especially in somewhere as expensive as Stockholm. So, basically people don't use cash much at all there, right?

You can pay with a debit/credit card almost everywhere. And most do. Local hot dog cart? Sure!

At least in the big cities, like Stockholm, Göteborg (Gothenburg), Malmö, Uppsala - cards are the main way of paying. You don't often see bills/coins changing hands.

Want to know something else that's funny in Sweden regarding debit/credit cards? There's almost no cards that give a percentage/cash back - and if they do, there's a high yearly fee - or a low pay out.

The common type of expenses is almost exclusively done through credit cards. Food, travel, gas, and bills have gone so far that its difficult (and often more expensive) to use physical cash rather than something bound to the bank account. Its perfectly viable to live/visit stockholm and not have any physical cash on you. Of course one would have to live with the fact that the bank takes transaction fees (if your not using a Swedish bank), and that any purchase is logged.

Sounds a bit creepy but I guess I'm simply not used to it.

In the UK we are close to that but not quite yet.

"Of course one would have to live with the fact that the bank takes transaction fees"

And now you know the "real" reason for the war on cash.

That sounds crazy. Doesn't it just make anyone who deals with cash avoid banks entirely?

There is very few who still deals with physical cash. Employers has to go through the same procedures, so salaries are almost exclusively paid through the bank.

For stores, most push customers to use personal card bounded to your bank account. The trains/buses uses a personalized travel card, and most has stopped taking physical cash altogether. Supermarket stores and gas stations has their "member" cards, but has also tried to move to smart phone apps (they get positional data on their customer through this method). Everyone else mostly takes both credit card and physical cash, but some towns have tried to move to credit card only.

I think Sweden needs a dose of Ayn Rand then. It's not a great idea to have every single financial transaction be monitored and controlled by the state.

Please provide sources for these claims (and prove me wrong!). I'm quite sure none of them are actual law as compared to company policies. The ATM limit is surely because of personal security reasons (but it can be raised if you notice the bank), and the SMS payments being removed because the communications providers dont want to be scrutinised by the government under "financial service providers law".

Not exactly true, they are already approved for the financial service provider law and still have to abide by it (see for example Tele2 http://fi.se/Register/Foretagsregistret/Foretagsregistret-De...)

Each bank differs slightly, through a good summery is a blog post from 2010 (http://mfc.elmberg.net/2010/03/07/kontantuttag-vad-galler-fo...). I am quite sure however that most is not law, but rather the banks trying to increase earnings by pushing customers to use credit cards over cash. However, if you ask the banks, they will say its to limit the number of robberies at banks. Given the speed that we are moving towards a cashless society, the truth is likely a mix of them all.

I picked Swedbanks number in my post above, mostly because they are focused on normal consumers and less so at businesses. The numbers are also fairly similar to other banks, with only a few hundred dollars in difference compared to other banks. Their exact numbers are written on their website (http://www.swedbank.se/privat/kort-och-betalningar/kort/om-k...). However, I couldn't find a link for the procedure with larger transactions. The best I could find is this news paper article (http://www.sydsvenskan.se/ekonomi/bankerna-stoppar-stora-utt...). I learned personally the procedure by calling my bank and going through the process myself.

Those limits are certainly not correct, I have taken out around $2000 in 3 withdrawals within 5 minutes in one ATM (SEB) earlier this year.

The SMS payment change was not due to the new EU directive, it was due to the telcos wanted to change it. SMS payment from anonymous prepaid cards were already not possible.

SEB seems to lack a day limit, but has a "for each withdraw" limit of $1500 and a 4-day limit of $3000. This is also only in special ATMs, where the common form again only allow for a ~$200 withdraw. If the is per day or per witdraw I do not know. (http://www.seb.se/pow/wcp/index.asp?ss=/pow/wcp/templates/se...)

On other hand, SEB has a hard limit of $14000 a month regarding any type of transaction (bank wire, withdraws, ectra).

as a side note, should test both types of atm to see if its per withdraw or per day. They do not actually say it explicitly. I have never tried to do 15 withdraws in a row on the same machine. I suspect the line behind me will start to mutter...

> Sure, there are ways around this, like buying a million rubber duckies in China, then shipping them to the US and selling them at carnivals. But -again- try to import a million of anything, and US Customs will want to know your name and SSN.

Importing and selling that volume of products also kind of defeats the purpose of running a drug cartel. Drug money is quick and easy, rubber ducky money, not so much (which is quite counter-intuitive if you ask me). At some point you will become more involved in the rubber ducky game, funded by drug money.

I didn't choose the duck life. The duck life chose me.

I'm not sure how much you know about the drug business, but no part of the chain of illegal narcotic production, from the farmers to the chemists to the smugglers to the dealers, is quick or easy. The barons get where they are by taking enormous risks, and are constantly under mortal threat from other drug cartels, backstabbers and governments. If it were easy, drugs would be cheaper.

Stick to ducks, is what I'm saying.

FYI most reputable Bitcoin exchanges are compliant with "anti-money laundering" regulations ("AML") and require valid identification on record for anyone making transactions of significant size. You'd have to use a shady online btc brokerage or exchange the btc in local cash-based deals if you want to circumvent the international AML laws.

https://bitfloor.com/ which is not a particular shady site (in fact, apparently they're already registered with FinCEN) allows you to buy BitCoins by depositing cash into their Bank of America account. There's an upper limit, of course, but there's no ID required, so nothing stops someone from driving to multiple Bank of America locations.

If you don't attract attention, then yes, "nothing stops someone from driving to multiple Bank of America locations" but intentionally doing that to skirt the limits actually is prohibited - it's a crime, just not as easily detectable.

If you do it in a large enough amount or you become suspected of some other issue, monitored and this comes up - then you'll be prosecuted for that.

But the point is that it would be pretty easy to do it without getting caught. You could send multiple people to multiple banks, across a wide area. The cost of manpower and fuel would eat a percentage, sure, but presumably any form of money laundering does. Which explains why the feds are interested in BitCoin.

Sure, it is not hard to do money laundering, and the risk of getting caught isn't that high - but my point is that even if you technically stay below the reporting limit, you're still facing prison if you get caught in the end; so it's not a trivial decision to make.

This is fairly well-known as 'structuring' or 'smurfing'[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring

> One of the functions of the Treasury Department is to prevent money laundering. [...] Think Mexican drug cartel money.

Or, just open a UBS account on the Caribbean.

It is, furthermore, illegal in the US to transfer money in small quantities with intent to avoid the reporting requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring

If any employee in a financial institution thinks you might be structuring transactions, they are obligated to notify authorities.

The Secret Service is actually the agency tasked with protecting the dollar. SS is under DHS now.

They protect it from counterfeiting - they don't regulate money laundering.