Topic: Money laundering, is it a term banks invented? (Read 2489 times)

"Illicit" means one thing, and one thing only: when the peasant does an activity that the master wants to do exclusively, then the peasant is acting illicitly.

For example: when you take money obtained by force or fraud and spend it on other stuff to make the original money disappear, it's called "money laundering"; when people doing business as "government" do the exact same thing, it's called "fiscal expense".

Maybe, but banks aren't above using regulatory efforts to tilt the playing field to their advantage.

The nation state's rush to change the function of money from an economic market-driven choice for medium of exchange, to money the tracking and snooping tool of an over-grown authoritarian state is, imho, a fatal conceit. They are undermining the state's primary cash-cow, the power to control the supply of the premium monetary product, by compromising the usefulness and design (evolved over millenia) of the final product.

AML and KYC sound wonderful and utopian, but the world is dirty, gritty and unpredictable, and doesn't usually take kindly when those 'ideal' marble-corridor theories are tested in the dirt-floor raw marketplace. The digital currency currently being issued by most nation states are undergoing a massive experiment in monetary economics that most have not even thought through, let alone planned for in the event of a "negative externalities" outcome.

Just because the digital money revolution made it possible to track, monitor, data-mine and analyse everybody's private financial dealings does not mean it was a good idea to do so. The economic ramifications of using such compromised currency systems could be with us for decades .... or until suitably private alternatives with maximally fungibile properties are widely adopted, at which point the survival of the nation state itself will be in question since its fate is now inextricably bound up with currency that it issues.

Bank don't care about money laundering. IRS and government does and they are the one writing AML and KYC laws.

Before it was called money laundering, it was simply called banking.

In a free market, all money is equal.

The obsession with "clean" laundered money is unique to the gang of BIS thugs.

That's why they hate fungible monetary assets like gold and silver, unless they own it of course.

IMO, the drugs and weapons selling problem falls to the responsible area of police, not bank. Banks doing this regulation for other pusposes, to make sure everyone should follow their decided way of working, so that they stay on the top of the food chain

Yes, but how do you detect people trying to "launder" money?
The answer appears to be: if they are not using credit cards on a day-to-day basis, they are probably laundering money somehow.

The Terrorist financing is even more intrusive. The open secret is that terrorism is cheap and falls below common reporting thresholds. So instead, they black-list people and organizations.

Most drug dealers dont make enough to even have to hide the money lol. If they do they can afford to launder it so the system is screwed. It is easy as pie to get a Swiss bank account.

I suggest you keep it simple.

*selling drugs is forbidden is most Western States
*that is a major reason that it is higly profitable business
*a drugs dealer would be able to make a lot of money
*but would get busted soon if all that money would suddenly show up in his bank accounts without 'reasonable' cause

Enter: the business of money laundering. Never mind that the system is broken if the amounts get really large (=own a bank in an offshore region).

I am considering posting an article explaining how I found out that the banking system is more broken than I realized. However the TL;DR will be:
Debit based money == Money laundering and Terrorist financing?

Edit: How did I mix up Debit and Credit?

We must thank to controlfags in early 20-th century who made cocaine unavailable in pharmacy stores.

Money laundering is a term invented in the 70's and a result of the politicization of the market's medium of exchange and an erosion in the key checks and balances in American jurisprudence. It is possible because of the centralization and deep capture of service providers with unconstitutional political currency and payment processors. The Wikileaks banking blockade displays this without any possible logical rebuttal.

As Mises wrote:


The privacy of the medium of exchange, like with gold and silver as restricted by Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1, is just one of many characteristics the medium of exchange needs to have to perform its proper role in the checks and balances of the politcal and legal machinery.

You can thank the cocaine cowboys of the 70's and 80's for the money laundering laws we have now.

When war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength, one has to learn to see past the doublespeak:

Anti-money laundering (AML) = tax enforcement = theft assistance.

Quantitative easing (QE) = currency debasement = money printing.

Money laundering is a term invented by banksters and government controlfags.

I still don't really understand why money laundering is bad and banks want to stop it, is it because banks want to control each person's activity more thorough?

Wikipedia: "Money laundering is the process of concealing the source of money obtained by illicit means."

What is defined as illicit? FED printing money out of thin air, is it illicit? In certain point of view it is, and the amount is enormous. They call it QE, but that is exactly "a process of concealing the source of money obtained by illicit means". It is like saying: Only banks have the right to laundry money freely

In my opinion, money can be robbed, stealed and lost, as long as it's money, there is no question of its legality, because if you trace the origin of today's money, they are all generated by illicit means (printing, or adding 0s to account, not working)

If money laundering is out of question, then BTC will gain some other ground and support