Brought to you by my discovery that some people think that “the customer is always right” isn’t the slogan of a long-dead department store, but rather it’s an actual call the cops law.

  • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, since people can just wire you money. Then, if you return it, they can attempt to use that transaction to prove dirty money is clean. If it is clean in the first place, they should be able to provide documentation.

    • Galluf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

      If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK, well I disagree that it ‘doesn’t obfuscate anything’. Additional transactions are in a launder’s interest.

        But also consider that If unknown monies can just be returned, then a launderer can keep trying, with multiple institutions in multiple ways, until they are successful in investing it.

        • Galluf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

          Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.