Would make sense imo to auction them to the highest bidder and distribute it to the heirs. Or give the heirs shares of a corporation that holds the artifact.
I'm not sure about Indonesia government but I'm confident if my forefathers made artifacts and it got 'returned' to US gov what would happen is a bunch of rich city dwellers would get to see it in an exhibit somewhere, some director will see a fat salary and meanwhile I have no share or compensation nor practical ability to access the artifact.
The concern here seems to be longshoreman is one of the highest paid blue collar jobs; there is close to zero percent chance the middle age and older guys get anything like this again. It's quite dissimilar to something like a unskilled farmhand getting fired and then moving slightly up to maintaining farm implements or something.
Sucks for them, but they can't complain when they were happy to charge the poor and lesser working class through the nose to unload their goods. They can't both have their capitalism and eat it.
The reason you can move across the nation for a good wage is in part that jobs were shit canned when they become economically or technologically disadvantaged to more efficient alternatives. Your high wage was made possible due to firing lots of people.
We should thank our lucky stars if a robot takes all their job. That's progress.
Er no, not really (past results != future results).. This high pay has worked out because there are jobs to move people to because demand has so far been expanding. If we are sick of the new output then your job will be filled by someone willing to take minimum wage.
Apparently the nature of markets is offensive when the description of them doesn't go along with pavlovian expectations?
I've met a lot of people who couldn't find the job they wanted in the place they wanted anymore and joined Tech along the US coast, for the predominant wages which are a factor of supply and demand.
Almost all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC or reporting so the magic is the very act of privacy makes it illegal.
It sounds like you're mixing up a bunch of things. To be clear: do you have a single example of a person who was convicted of the crime of money laundering despite it being proven in court that the underlying activity wasn't illegal?
In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
> In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around.
I very much understand that, but you missed my point with that constraint: the point was that if your objection is that legal underlying activity can constitute money laundering, then to prove your objection you need to show an example of provably legal underlying activity.
On the other hand, if your complaint is that innocent-before-proven-guilty isn't being upheld by courts, that's a fine complaint, but an entirely separate one from money laundering.
> What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
In other words he did conceal illegal activity. Hence my point.
Every single bank and person conceals illegal activity by your final sentence. You probably have sold something for cash bought by a drug dealer and unknowingly laundered drug money.
The point here is that an unwitting actor is somehow guilty if they did not do KYC. By your standard basically every gas station near the border is a money launderer, since they know damn well much of the cash they take and transmit is drug and cartel money.
And that's the genius of this line of reasoning. There is nary a dollar in circulation that hasnt been used in crime.
Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts. I wasn't trying to make a case for what money laundering is, only what (as I understand it) it definitely isn't. The example you cite clearly covered up underlying criminal activity, whereas the claim was that you can be guilty of money laundering without any illegal underlying crime. Hence it fails to support the premise. That is all.
> No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering.
How did I move to money laundering? Are we reading the same thread? The comment I initially replied to specifically said, "Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering"?
> you were being duplicitous. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience.
It's quite the opposite, but your personal swipes are pretty uncalled for, so I won't continue.
> all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC
Not at all. I have authorised large wires without providing KYC or collecting KYC from the other party. My bank knows who I am. And I colloquially know the person I'm sending money to. But I haven't e.g. run them through OFAC.
I've wired non-USD from my U.S. bank and wired U.S. dollars overseas. I presume their bank is doing KYC. But I don't know.
You claimed "all large financial transactions or storage useful and active in commerce require KYC." That's simply untrue. It's advisable to ensure someone is doing their KYC. But not necessary.
Yes if you cutoff the first word it becomes untrue, how ridiculously disinguine.
Here's an exercise, look at the FATF black list and then start asking your bank about the process for wiring large sums there. A lot of this compliance is driven through FATF actions that drive any country that wants access to anyone touching dollars or us banks to comply.
No I haven't. For instance the nation of Myanmar is in the list. OFAC as far as I know would permit transmission to most people there
The black list is nominally about weak AML and other factors. It's an example I used because it's a list of places on the shit list in part because they may have weak controls on KYC.
FATF is a big driver if imposing KYC everywhere that wants to interact with a US bank or USD. I'm trying to show you if you actually try to wire somewhere with bad KYC I think you're going to have issues.
> if you actually try to wire somewhere with bad KYC I think you're going to have issues
Sure. There are three black list countries: North Korea, Myanmar and Iran. "Almost all large transactions" do not happen with people in these countries.
Are you at least open to the idea that the major reason why many other nations like Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Panama, St Kitts came off the black list and into AML and KYC compliance is so they would have low friction wire transfers and banking in USD?
I think you're missing connecting the dots here. Countries with large USD transaction dependence comply with KYC precisely because otherwise they'd not be able to easily accept your wire transfer. They were pressured into it, this KYC requirement that is largely invisible to you. And the threat is well if they don't they end up like Myanmar which I promise your bank will be getting to know what the purpose and identity of any transaction you have with them is.
KYC dominates because of a worldwide regulatory effort, do this or you'll be cut off and it will be a nightmare to trade USD. Almost all large transactions go through KYC or reporting because it's been made difficult and usually illegal not to. Were this not the case you WOULD likely see lots of large transactions to Myanmar as various rich people use it as a haven for stashing funds anonymously ( although I think Panama etc would quickly steal the competitive edge).
There is still an element of truth. If you don't provide KYC for a bank account there is now a crime if it is knowingly allowed. You could go offshore but now you need to report the account. You could form an anonymous LLC but law recently changed an now must report UBO to fincen.
You could store cash/gold in an anonymous safe deposit, but FBI raid and steal this. You cant fly with large cash because again feds steal it. You can't carry it out the country in large without reporting it.
Crypto, same story, KYC at the exits and P2P offramp actors getting treated as 'unlicensed money transmitter' etc which again triggers KYC.
Quickly you realize it's about shutting off all the exits of privacy, not money laundering which only has increased cost consolidating power to more dangerous organizations.
Not providing KYC is definitely not a crime. It happens all the time. What usually happens is that the bank just terminates the account, after a while.
Unless someone dislikes them, in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC (even though we all know sanctioned entities operate on white market using dark identity, so regular banks guilty too).
> in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC
Example? Every one I can think of involved the bank not doing KYC, criminals taking advantage of it, and evidence at least some people at the bank knew what was happening. (Usually because authorities told the bank they were doing business with criminals and the bank responded by shuffling things around so they could continue doing that business.)
Banks are always doing business with criminals and sanctioned entities and they know that, although not always when and where.
The difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it. If the bank just gives each person a random number as their only identifier like the old swiss accounts, then they'll be warned sanctioned entities are using it and ultimately prosecuted when they fail to KYC (i.e. similar but but identical to CZ).
> difference is if the bank does KYC and the criminal uses a dark identity, the bank will likely get away with it
What is a dark entity? Have you worked in finance? Because if you collect KYC and accepted forged or faulty documents, the moment you figure out what's going on is the moment you call your personal lawyer.
> criminal pays a heroin addict for their real ID and then basically uses them as pass through nominee on the account
Sure. If you're at a financial institution and accept that documentation, you're personally in for a world of hurt. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, either due to someone being negligent, overworked or happy to look the other way. But if it's caught, it's not great for the individual. (The bank will survive after paying a fine unless it's systemic.)
I imagine they usually don't know. Some fraction of identities are real IDs taken advantage of by sanctioned entities. If you bank at all you knowingly accept some level of sanctioned entities, but often don't know what identity they operate.
> Some fraction of identities are real IDs taken advantage of by sanctioned entities
Sure. But if the addict you mentioned's account goes from overdrafting every few weeks to holding millions of dollars, that should set off internal alarms.
> a lot of people would be eager to know the names of these banks that let customers operate without KYC for awhile
Non sequitur. Banks generally have to have KYC to do business, though there are famous exceptions in history. There is no jurisdiction I know of in which as a customer not providing KYC is itself a crime.
The customer isnt charged, it is the bank/entity or persons there. Not legal advice but failure if AML and not collecting identifying information is charged under 31 USC 5322 under indictment I'm reading.
The law here notes even some CFRs are criminally binding, the CFRs explicitly require certain identification.
Is most of that an issue if you declare your income and pay any relevant taxes? Outside of some unnecessary annoyances it generally wouldn’t be too complicated to move your money around.
Otherwise, what are you expecting? Direct taxation isn’t really compatible with ‘financial privacy’ and never was.
It depends. Some banks will ask for root origin of funds. Say you earned some money 20 years ago, invested them with various brokers into stocks all over the world, real estate etc. And then cashed a large sum into your account. If any one of those transactions is flagged they will require you to go back 20 years and collect those invoices that you earned and then you have to collect every transaction from the brokers, this may involve foreign jurisdictions where record keeping and querying is not available from 20 years ago.
So you will fail the disclosure and the bank will flag you in the shared blacklist DBs, they close your accounts and you are out of the system. This is happening enmasse to people who invested in and cashed out of real estate abroad(asia/africa/sa) some time ago. I imagine it's the same with foreign stock markets. And you never know what will be required 20 years in the future, thus most financial advisors discourage "moving money around". They even have a whitelist of brokers, stocks and jurisdictions, anything outside that is uninvestable for normal people just because of KYC/AML paperwork requirements.
This kind of legislation is crafter by big masses of lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, whatever. Additionally they change all the time. There are many different motivations at play. Maybe it is surveillance, maybe something else, in the end who cares, because it is impossible to read minds.
