Galluf

@Galluf@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Galluf,

That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.

Galluf,

It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.

The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.

Galluf,

You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.

If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?

Galluf,

I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.

Galluf,

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.

Galluf,

I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

Galluf,

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.

Galluf,

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #