Is There a New Dotcom Bubble?

[Ed209]

So, the banking cartel got fined, again, for rigging the forex spot markets.

BRUSSELS, Dec 2 (Reuters) - EU antitrust regulators on Thursday fined Barclays (BARC.L), Credit Suisse (CSGN.S), HSBC (HSBA.L) and NatWest (NWG.L) 344 million euros ($390 million) for foreign exchange market rigging, closing a key chapter in a high-profile investigation.

UBS (UBSG.S) avoided a 94 million euro fine by alerting the European Commission to the cartel, which was set up via a chatroom known as "Sterling Lads".

The latest investigation focused on foreign exchange (forex) spot trading of G10 currencies, the most liquid and traded currencies in the world, which include the U.S. dollar, pound and euro.

Traders exchanged sensitive information and trading plans and sometimes coordinated strategies through the online chatroom, the Commission said.

The EU has already sanctioned some of the same banks over similar conduct in 2019 in a settlement featuring chatrooms called "Three Way Banana Split", "Only Marge","Essex Express" and "Semi Grumpy Old Men".

"Today we complete our sixth cartel investigation in the financial sector since 2013 and conclude the third leg of our investigation into the foreign exchange spot trading market," EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said in a statement.

She said the collusive behaviour of the five banks undermined the integrity of the financial sector at the expense of the European economy and consumers.

Barclays, Citigroup (C.N), JP Morgan (JPM.N), MUFG and RBS were fined a combined 1.07 billion euros in May 2019 by the EU antitrust authorities for manipulating the foreign exchange market via two cartels, between 2007 to 2013 for one group and between 2009 to 2012 for the other.

https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...suisse-344-mln-euros-forex-cartel-2021-12-02/​

The incredible irony here is that these are the same banks that stopped their customers from using Binance to "protect" them . It's ridiculous. Some people missed out on life-changing returns whilst they fucked everyone over on the spot markets.

This has been going on for years whilst they constantly put out news stories about how evil crypto is They really don't want a fair and decentralised system, do they? I wonder why?

 

[Juan]

Bitcoin is a solid investment where you can put your money and just leave it 5-10 years.

Bitcoin is a gamble. It is not an investment.

If it drops back to $10k, for example, then you buy more and average down. Never go all in in one move. Buy in tranches.

That "strategy" must be older than the world and no one who knows about investments ever recommends that. It's building up on a losing position.

These patterns are cyclical, and you'll never time the exact tops and bottoms, but you don't need to.

That's what people have been saying on the bull market of the last 4 - 5 years. YouTubers pretending to be financial experts. Simpletons. That does not work.

 

[Juan]

Facebook keeps getting sued. Legal trouble is piling up:

Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide

Victims in US and UK legal action accuse social media firm of failing to prevent incitement of violence

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...cide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence

 

[Ed209]

Bitcoin is a gamble. It is not an investment.

That "strategy" must be older than the world and no one who knows about investments ever recommends that. It's building up on a losing position.

That's what people have been saying on the bull market of the last 4 - 5 years. YouTubers pretending to be financial experts. Simpletons. That does not work.

Bitcoin is no more a gamble than anything else one can invest in. I'd agree that in the earlier days (like 10 years ago) that it was a gamble, but not anymore. It's currently the best asset investment of all time, and it accounts for just a tiny percentage of the global markets. It is still early and can easily 100x from where it is now.

That "strategy" must be older than the world and no one who knows about investments ever recommends that. It's building up on a losing position.

I think this statement is bizarre as it goes against the very essence of what investing is all about. It doesn't matter what I say, though, as I'm clearly on my own based purely on the cliquey nature of this thread, rather than the points being made.

 

[Juan]

Bitcoin is no more a gamble than anything else one can invest in. I'd agree that in the earlier days (like 10 years ago) that it was a gamble, but not anymore. It's currently the best asset investment of all time, and it accounts for just a tiny percentage of the global markets. It is still early and can easily 100x from where it is now.

Bitcoin is, at best, a way for money laundering.

 

[PeteJ]

Bitcoin is, at best, a way for money laundering.

I told you what Bitcoin is for, right?

Just trying to help people.

If someone refuses to consider the long term plan and they use Bitcoin believing it's just another transaction method, that's what they want. He's their ideal "customer."

 

[Ed209]

Bitcoin is, at best, a way for money laundering.

Really?

Last week, a set of documents known as the FinCEN files were released, detailing how some of the biggest banks in the world move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions for suspected terrorists, kleptocrats and drug kingpins. And the U.S. government has failed to stop it.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN"), an agency within the Treasury Department, charged with combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. A collection of "suspicious activity reports" offers a window into financial corruption, and how governments are unable or unwilling to stop it. Profits from deadly drug wars, fortunes embezzled from developing countries, and hard-earned savings stolen in Ponzi schemes, all flow through financial institutions, despite warnings from bank employees.

Money laundering is more than a financial crime. It is a tool that makes all other crimes possible – from drug trafficking to political crimes. And banks make it all possible. In a detailed expose, BuzzFeedNewsnamed several of the most trusted banks. Current investigations show that even after fines and prosecutions, well-known JPMorgan Chase JPM, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of New York Mellon BK are all involved in moving funds for suspected criminals.

The current financial system largely insulates the banks and its executives from prosecution, so long as the bank files a notice with FinCEN that it may be facilitating criminal activity. The suspicious activity alert effectively gives the banks a free pass. And so, illegal funds continue to flow through banks into various industries from oil to entertainment to real estate, further separating the rich from the poor, while the banks we have grown to trust, make it all possible.

According to the United Nations, the estimated amount of money laundered globally in one year is 2 to 5% of the global GDP, or $800 billion to $2 trillion, with more than thank 90% of money laundering going undetected today.

Concurrently, the cryptocurrency industry has also been criticized for being a tool for money laundering, despite statistics stating otherwise. It is estimated that only 1.1% of all cryptocurrency transactions are illicit. During its early days, Bitcoin was widely associated with the Silk Road, an online dark-net marketplace, where users could purchase weapons and illegal drugs anonymously.

But with the growing use of the Bitcoin network, 42 million Bitcoin wallets and counting, it is becoming increasingly possible to track transactions on public blockchains, while private banking transactions remain hidden in plain sight.

This week, I had an opportunity to sit down with Chanpeng Zhao "CZ", the Founder & CEO of Binance, largest cryptocurrency exchange by volume in the world, to get his take on money laundering both in the traditional and the digital finance worlds.

The cryptocurrency industry has come under fire for facilitating illicit transactions. How do you think traditional finance and cryptocurrency industries compare in this regard?

CZ: If you are using Bitcoin, it is a transparent ledger. Once you have a few transactions, you can trace the funds all the way back to where the coins were mined. So in this way, blockchain actually provides a very transparent ledger for everyone to analyze. If you piece together a few data points and do a cluster analysis, it is not that hard for an algorithm to analyze the origin. Privacy coins are harder to track, but their market cap is not that high, making larger transactions more difficult. So to be honest, it is much easier to make illicit transactions using fiat than using crypto.

You can read the rest here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tatian...nd-money-laundering-banks-and-cryptocurrency/

Fact is, money can be laundered using fiat or crypto, but crypto generally makes it more difficult. You seem to be repeating arguments you've read elsewhere as you continually demonstrate your ignorance on this subject via the points you make. But, I suppose that's not really your fault and it's understandable that you think this.

Most people still don't understand what a blockchain is, or what a layer 1 is, or a layer 2, or what an oracle is, etc. Because of this, people are easily influenced into believing all sorts of things.

 

[Ed209]

I told you what Bitcoin is for, right?

Just trying to help people.

If someone refuses to consider the long term plan and they use Bitcoin believing it's just another transaction method, that's what they want. He's their ideal "customer."

I haven't got any Bitcoin.

 

[Juan]

Fact is, money can be laundered using fiat or crypto, but crypto generally makes it more difficult. You seem to be repeating arguments you've read elsewhere as you continually demonstrate your ignorance on this subject via the points you make. But, I suppose that's not really your fault and it's understandable that you think this.

So that's why banks tend to block accounts that trade Bitcoin or receive suspicious foreign payments frequently...

 

[Ed209]

So that's why banks tend to block accounts that trade Bitcoin or receive suspicious foreign payments frequently...

They block certain platforms because they don't want people accessing a fair system as it's a threat to their dominance. It's as simple as that. What's even more tragic is that they hold Bitcoin and Ethereum themselves whilst denying their customers that same right. They also need your money so that they can continue to pay themselves massive unnecessary bonuses whilst rigging the markets and allowing terrorists and criminals to move trillions around various accounts.

Are these the banks you're referring to?

I understand what "good" banks do for society, but times are changing along with technology. Knowing your criticisms of the current system, it still surprises me how you're so against crypto. The legacy banking systems are slow, expensive, and archaic. They are also centralised which means a few people control everything as they have the power to inflate and debase currencies at will.

 

[Juan]

They block certain platforms because they don't want people accessing a fair system as it's a threat to their dominance.

No, you are wrong. Banks block accounts doing those transactions because they are required by law to avoid money laundering.

 

[Ed209]

No, you are wrong. Banks block accounts doing those transactions because they are required by law to avoid money laundering.

They don't do a very good job then do they, lol. Money laundering is rife within the banking system.

If you don't want to deal with reality then I guess there's no point continuing this discussion as it's easy to make things up or believe in an idyllic fantasy.

Good luck with everything, Juan.

 

[Damocles]

They don't do a very good job then do they, lol. Money laundering is rife within the banking system.

If you don't want to deal with reality then I guess there's no point continuing this discussion as it's easy to make things up or believe in an idyllic fantasy.

Good luck with everything, Juan.

Will be sad to see this string of debate come to a close.

@Ed209 is pretty much @Luman all over again; @Juan just has no luck maintaining frenemy-ships.

For what it's worth, if I ever have something I can call a disposable income @Ed209, you have my word that I'll buy £100 worth of cryptocurrency, just to see how it all works, and feels ლ(⌣̀‿⌣́ ლ); provided you give me your word you'll show me the ropes, give me sound advice on what to invest in, and what to do with it after I have.

Also @Juan, for the record, totally agree with you. The problem isn't centralised banking; it's the people in charge of the centralised banking systems, that have royally screwed us all over. Banking isn't rocket science, in fact, there's no branch of science it could be compared to, it's so unbelievably simple.

The world is basically under the thumb of a few corrupt oligarchies that have managed to secure themselves lives of unimaginable luxury without ever having to put in a day's work just by parasitizing off the rest of us. And those people can play fun games with our money to their hearts content, knowing that when they lose, the only people that will feel it are us, the peasants.

 

[Ed209]

Also @Juan, for the record, totally agree with you. The problem isn't centralised banking; it's the people in charge of the centralised banking systems, that have royally screwed us all over. Banking isn't rocket science, in fact, there's no branch of science it could be compared to, it's so unbelievably simple.

Fractional-reserve banking only works on the premise that people don't all want their money at the same time, because if they did, the bank would go bankrupt. They are required by law to hold a reserve but it in no way covers them. They make their money on the rate differences between depositors and borrowers, and then they are free to do whatever they want with the proceeds. They can buy other assets and equities, etc, or just stick to lending and borrowing. The problem is that many bankers get greedy and put too much money at risk for substantial short-term gains, and these risks are passed onto the public if everything goes wrong (just like in 2008). In 2008, there were a load of mortgage-backed securities (MBS's) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) being sold that were full of junk meaning they couldn't make their money back. As we know, this had disastrous consequences. If there's a situation whereby more people need their money than what the bank is holding, the bank can sell their debts (loans, mortgages, etc) to other banks or financial institutions to rebalance things, but even this carries a risk as outlined above. That's basically all the fraction-reserve model is.

Crypto is still in its infancy and isn't ready to take over the job of world currencies, but the technology is far superior. There are many advantages to using this technology over a traditional bank, but the general public doesn't understand the reasons why because they either haven't used it or haven't been educated about how it all works. This will change in the coming decade or two.

I'm not here to be a fanboy (although it may seem that way), but rather to educate, as I only joined this thread when I saw common misconceptions being posted. It makes no difference to me either way how one chooses to finance their life. It's none of my business.

 

[Exit]

Will be sad to see this string of debate come to a close.

@Ed209 is pretty much @Luman all over again; @Juan just has no luck maintaining frenemy-ships.

For what it's worth, if I ever have something I can call a disposable income @Ed209, you have my word that I'll buy £100 worth of cryptocurrency, just to see how it all works, and feels ლ(⌣̀‿⌣́ ლ); provided you give me your word you'll show me the ropes, give me sound advice on what to invest in, and what to do with it after I have.

Also @Juan, for the record, totally agree with you. The problem isn't centralised banking; it's the people in charge of the centralised banking systems, that have royally screwed us all over. Banking isn't rocket science, in fact, there's no branch of science it could be compared to, it's so unbelievably simple.

The world is basically under the thumb of a few corrupt oligarchies that have managed to secure themselves lives of unimaginable luxury without ever having to put in a day's work just by parasitizing off the rest of us. And those people can play fun games with our money to their hearts content, knowing that when they lose, the only people that will feel it are us, the peasants.

View attachment 48128

THIS was the best post ever in this thread, that photo was gold in here

But keep it up guys, I find this more relaxing than Valium

 

[Juan]

They don't do a very good job then do they, lol. Money laundering is rife within the banking system.

No, they do not do a good job. Actually I read an interview with Europol representatives today and they just avoided all the uncomfortable questions about corruption, financial crimes and money laundering in general.

However, Europol did point to cryptocurrencies as the last tool for fraud and money laundering, and that's why banks, under the current legislation (EU and national states' legislation) block accounts that deal routinely with crypto, foreign jurisdictions etc.

Banks sometimes block legimitate transactions. For instance, when an expat moves from outside the EU to the EU and they hold their assets let's say in Singapore, or the UAE, sometimes banks block accounts in the EU that are receiving foreign funds until proof is submitted that these transactions are legitimate, and the origin on money is legitimate and can be traced.

For the same reason banks block accounts related to crypto. They require proof and evidence of the origin of funds etc Banks have to perform the money laundering checks required by law. That's all.

 

[Ed209]

However, Europol did point to cryptocurrencies as the last tool for fraud and money laundering, and that's why banks, under the current legislation (EU and national states' legislation) block accounts that deal routinely with crypto, foreign jurisdictions etc.

It's a known fact that banks launder far more money because it's easier, and as I've already stated, they also rig the markets and steal money from retail investors. You never came back on any of those points. Did you even read the Forbes article? Why defend these institutions when the bonuses they give out to themselves would pay the annual salaries of many workers? Why is that necessary? It's massively wasteful.

Cryptocurrencies rely on an indelible public record of transactions making money laundering difficult. Again, the prevalence of virtual currencies is lower than fiat making cryptocurrencies more difficult to launder than fiat currency.

For the same reason banks block accounts related to crypto. They require proof and evidence of the origin of funds etc Banks have to perform the money laundering checks required by law. That's all.

This is nonsense. They blocked people from using Binance where you need KYC to sign up. It has absolutely nothing to do with money laundering, so if you believe that then there's nothing I can say that'll make you realise this. They blocked it because they don't want people to use it. It's really that simple. They sent a message out to people claiming they wanted to protect their money. It was laughable. Since when do banks get the right to dictate to people how they can use their own money? It's absurd and a dangerous precedent. It's also even more hypocritical when they are allowed by buy and store crypto, but you aren't. My friend sent this reply in our investment group chat after I shared the story that the same banks that blocked Binance had been scamming people on the Forex:

And that's about the truth of it.

I've got one question for you:

Would you use a decentralised system that cannot be corrupted by people and that pays a fair interest rate to everyone that uses it? A system that is also much greener than the current one?

Look how successful MiamiCoin has been so far. It's raised millions that they've used to fund the city, and there's talk that it's been so effective that they may even reduce taxes.

 

[Juan]

It has absolutely nothing to do with money laundering, so if you believe that then there's nothing I can say that'll make you realise this.

Banks do not like to block accounts. They do so to comply with the law and money laundering checks and protocols, as mandated by law.

Would you use a decentralised system that cannot be corrupted by people and that pays a fair interest rate to everyone that uses it? A system that is also much greener than the current one?

I do not see how using tons of electricity to mine Bitcoin is greener.

 

[Ed209]

Banks do not like to block accounts. They do so to comply with the law and money laundering checks and protocols, as mandated by law.

The official reason given was to protect peoples money. If that's the case, then why don't they block all gambling sites? The only reason they do it is because it's in direct competition with their business and they want the monopoly.

I do not see how using tons of electricity to mine Bitcoin is greener.

This has already been discussed on the Bitcoin thread, but I'll post some excerpts here, so please read through:

Critics of Bitcoin like to compare its carbon footprint to a transaction on your Visa card, ignoring the environmental impact of the infrastructure that sustains fiat money and the enormous collateral damage that fiat brings. These secondary effects make fiat money orders of magnitude more energy-destructive than Bitcoin.

You can appreciate fiat's secondary footprint from any street corner on Earth: 80,000 bank branchesand 470,000 ATMs in the U.S. alone, along with forests of skyscrapers that dominate every city on the planet. Then the part we don't see: Finance and insurance are 8.4% of the gross domestic product in the U.S., only slightly behind manufacturing. That means millions taking the subway or driving to the office – or, the pandemic equivalent, firing up an army of laptops and call centers – to sling paper money under fiat's harsh fluorescent glow. Visa transactions don't even come close.

To translate this recession cost into something that can be compared to Bitcoin, I relied on the most mainstream estimates of the carbon cost of a dollar of GDP – about 5,000 BTU (British thermal units), or 1.5 kWh (kilowatt hour), per dollar. Then, using the Federal Reserve's own estimate of $11 trillion destroyed peak to trough in the 2008 crisis – the very crisis that inspired Satoshi to create Bitcoin – you simply multiply the two. That comes out to 16,500 TWh (terawatt hour) of carbon equivalence destroyed during that single recession. Accounting for the rest of the world, that might triple. Accounting for the other 16 recessions the Fed has given us – with more to come – makes it astronomical.

———————————————————————

Let's be clear: when it comes to environmental impact, cryptocurrency doesn't hold a candle to the ecological wrecking ball of fiat currency. Fiat not only consumes more energy in its birth than bitcoin mining (11 terawatt hours versus 8.27) but fiat is doubly damaging at its death, when it must be destroyed by burning, releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere. The lifespan of some fiat banknotes is only four or five years before they are removed from general circulation and burned. By comparison, a mined bitcoin is mined forever, without the need for refreshment or renewal.

---------------------------------------------------------

One popular critique of bitcoin is energy cost per transaction. This doesn't begin to capture bitcoin's massive energy savings compared to fiat currency.

Bitcoin's cost per transaction is well known, and often critiqued; one article in Wired magazinecalled bitcoin "[a] big middle finger to earth's climate." This is because bitcoin's security, redundancy, and architecture are more energy intensive than traditional payments relying on a single point of failure.

Comparing the energy of a single transaction barely scrapes the surface of the dollar's carbon footprint, which includes the entire financial infrastructure supporting fiat—8.4 percent of GDP in the US alone, slightly behind manufacturing. This includes 80,000 bank branches, 470,000 ATMs in the US alone, and forests of skyscrapers towering over most cities on earth.

Alas, that's still only the beginning. Because paper money allows governments to print unlimited amounts of debt, that causes various collateral damage including inflation, recessions, and trillions in wasteful spending or endless wars whose costs are hidden by debt financing. These all, of course, carry catastrophic human costs that can only be imperfectly expressed in a carbon footprint.​

Also, I didn't refer to Bitcoin in my previous post, but a decentralised financial system. Bitcoin isn't good as a currency, and it's also proof-of-work making it more energy intensive. Proof-of-stake protocols have a much better carbon footprint, which means a financial system based around such a protocol would be hugely more energy efficient compared to fiat.

The problem here is that you've been following the media where banks fill the headlines with negative spin about cryptos' energy usage, and they do this without ever mentioning the current system's energy usage! It's really convenient of them, lol.

Anyway, you never answered my question. You're like a politician

 

[UKBloke]

But keep it up guys, I find this more relaxing than Valium

lol

 

[Juan]

The official reason given was to protect peoples money. If that's the case, then why don't they block all gambling sites? The only reason they do it is because it's in direct competition with their business and they want the monopoly.

No. Banks only enforce anti money laundering legislation. They have no interest in blocking accounts but are required to perform the legal checks required.

The Internet is full of forums of crypto users saying their accounts were blocked.

Banks also block accounts that receive numerous payments from other jurisdictions; this happens to people trading without having a legitimate business set up, people who do not declare their activity or profits to the IRS.

 

[Ed209]

No. Banks only enforce anti money laundering legislation. They have no interest in blocking accounts but are required to perform the legal checks required.

I promise that I'm not just doing a tit for tat back and forth about this for the sake of pettiness as there really is an issue with the banks restricting access, and it has nothing to do with money laundering. They will say all sorts of things, but actions speak louder than words, and it's obvious that they don't want people trading this asset class. At least countries like China and India just say it as it is and say it's banned and you can't use it. Countries like the US are supposed to represent freedom, so instead of just saying we want to ban it, they put on a front and pretend to give equal rights whilst throwing a ton of bureaucracy at everything.

@Jack Straw, would you say the banks where you are give you the freedom to use your money to buy crypto assets? Do you believe you are restricted from buying certain things because of a fear of money laundering, or because the banks don't want you to have access?

 

[Damocles]

Do you believe you are restricted from buying certain things because of a fear of money laundering, or because the banks don't want you to have access?

Had it ever occurred to you they might not be mutually exclusive (?)

 

[Ed209]

Had it ever occurred to you they might not be mutually exclusive (?)

No, because money laundering has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctions. Even the Mayor-elect of New York, Eric Adams, said he wants to get rid of the bureaucracy surrounding crypto and the access problem regarding banks. If you saw how they handle these things first-hand you'd understand how corrupt it all is.

People still talk about how they got a text from NatWest, etc, saying we are restricting your access to Binance for your own protection. It's become a running joke. The banks give people no interest; Crypto.com give me 12% apr, 3% cashback on all purchases, free Netflix and Spotify, and an airport lounge pass. That's why I took all my money out the bank. Anyone holding large amounts of cash in a bank account at the moment is crazy, in my opinion. The current inflation is going to eat up all that purchasing power because there's no interest to mitigate it.

PS: here's an article talking about it. It's quite clear from this that they just don't want people to use it:

Disgruntled customers immediately took to Twitter to voice their concerns, only to receive a similar message from the official Barclays U.K. Help Twitter account.

Barclays isn't the only U.K. bank to take a stand against crypto: Natwest recently issued a similar block in hopes of protecting customers from scams and frauds, while HSBC has banned clients from buying MSTR stock on its trading platform due to MicroStrategy's exposure to Bitcoin.

Although Barclays has stopped card transfers to Binance, it has assured customers that this action does not impact their ability to withdraw funds from the exchange. The message also didn't mention instant transfers, but only those made with a credit or debit card.

HSBC even stopped people buying MicroStrategy on the NASDAQ because they hold Bitcoin. Are they also money laundering ? It's funny that they restricted their customers from trading MicroStrategy's stock, and they did this whilst they were illegally scamming them on the Forex. You couldn't write this stuff. Talk about hypocritical after they said they were doing it to protect them from scams . It's absolutely hilarious.

 

[Ed209]

This is Barclays official message:

Yea, it's clearly down to money laundering

 

[Damocles]

No, because money laundering has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctions. Even the Mayor-elect of New York, Eric Adams, said he wants to get rid of the bureaucracy surrounding crypto and the access problem regarding banks. If you saw how they handle these things first-hand you'd understand how corrupt it all is.

People still talk about how they got a text from NatWest, etc, saying we are restricting your access to Binance for your own protection. It's become a running joke. The banks give people no interest; Crypto.com give me 12% apr, 3% cashback on all purchases, free Netflix and Spotify, and an airport lounge pass. That's why I took all my money out the bank. Anyone holding large amounts of cash in a bank account at the moment is crazy, in my opinion. The current inflation is going to eat up all that purchasing power because there's no interest to mitigate it.

PS: here's an article talking about it. It's quite clear from this that they just don't want people to use it:

Disgruntled customers immediately took to Twitter to voice their concerns, only to receive a similar message from the official Barclays U.K. Help Twitter account.

Barclays isn't the only U.K. bank to take a stand against crypto: Natwest recently issued a similar block in hopes of protecting customers from scams and frauds, while HSBC has banned clients from buying MSTR stock on its trading platform due to MicroStrategy's exposure to Bitcoin.

Although Barclays has stopped card transfers to Binance, it has assured customers that this action does not impact their ability to withdraw funds from the exchange. The message also didn't mention instant transfers, but only those made with a credit or debit card.

HSBC even stopped people buying MicroStrategy on the NASDAQ because they hold Bitcoin. Are they also money laundering ? It's funny that they restricted their customers from trading MicroStrategy's stock, and they did this whilst they were illegally scamming them on the Forex. You couldn't write this stuff. Talk about hypocritical after they said they were doing it to protect them from scams . It's absolutely hilarious.

Last week, a set of documents known as the FinCEN files were released, detailing how some of the biggest banks in the world move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions for suspected terrorists, kleptocrats and drug kingpins. And the U.S. government has failed to stop it.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN"), an agency within the Treasury Department, charged with combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. A collection of "suspicious activity reports" offers a window into financial corruption, and how governments are unable or unwilling to stop it. Profits from deadly drug wars, fortunes embezzled from developing countries, and hard-earned savings stolen in Ponzi schemes, all flow through financial institutions, despite warnings from bank employees.

Money laundering is more than a financial crime. It is a tool that makes all other crimes possible – from drug trafficking to political crimes. And banks make it all possible. In a detailed expose, BuzzFeedNewsnamed several of the most trusted banks. Current investigations show that even after fines and prosecutions, well-known JPMorgan Chase JPM, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of New York Mellon BK are all involved in moving funds for suspected criminals.

The current financial system largely insulates the banks and its executives from prosecution, so long as the bank files a notice with FinCEN that it may be facilitating criminal activity. The suspicious activity alert effectively gives the banks a free pass. And so, illegal funds continue to flow through banks into various industries from oil to entertainment to real estate, further separating the rich from the poor, while the banks we have grown to trust, make it all possible.

According to the United Nations, the estimated amount of money laundered globally in one year is 2 to 5% of the global GDP, or $800 billion to $2 trillion, with more than thank 90% of money laundering going undetected today.

@Ed209, I think we're all agreed there are a lot of criminals in banking and finance, but surely you must acknowledge that it is far easier to launder money using cryptocurrencies than with established/fiat currencies?

For example:

With established fiat currency, laundering is hindered by transparency and digital fingerprints tied to IRL identities. It's difficult to get large sums of money across borders (in practically any form) and the moving of large sums within accounts requires abbetance by an outside party; either a civilian or a banker/financier themselves (which needless to say, is risky).

With cryptocurrency on the other hand, laundering is made easy. You can simply exchange established currency, or another cryptocurrency for... cryptocurrency. Move it wherever you like with no checks and no trace to your IRL identity, without the need for reliance on any outside party or inside man. Then later, re-exchange it for established/fiat currency with the use of an OTC broker.

I mean, ironically, just by virtue of the fact that you're able to provide such evidence of said criminality within central banking, in itself, shows just how difficult it is to get away with money laundering when it comes to the movement of dollars/euros/pounds etc, without it eventually becoming public knowledge; just down to the sheer number of complicit parties that are required to stay silent for it to work, I imagine.

 

[Ed209]

I think we're all agreed there are a lot of criminals in banking and finance, but surely you must acknowledge that it is far easier to launder money using cryptocurrencies than with established/fiat currencies?

No, it's not, and I've already been over this. At this point, I'm beginning to think that my posts must be invisible or something. Once you try to transact using crypto you're on the ledger, and your money movements can be traced on a block explorer. Algorithms can even be used to connect various wallets to the same person. If one then wants to convert the crypto back to fiat they would have to use an exchange that requires KYC and identification.

For example:

With established fiat currency, laundering is hindered by transparency and digital fingerprints tied to IRL identities.

So is crypto? Crypto transactions require a lot of validations by nodes on the network which also makes them more secure. Crypto transactions are easily traceable, and as I said, your identity is known. I'm sure there will be some crappy exchanges that will use weak KYC, but we're talking specifically about Binance here.

It's difficult to get large sums of money across borders (in practically any form) and the moving of large sums within accounts requires abbetance by an outside party; either a civilian or a banker/financier themselves (which needless to say, is risky).

With cryptocurrency, on the other hand, laundering is made easy. You can simply exchange established currency or another cryptocurrency for... cryptocurrency. Move it wherever you like with no checks and no trace to your IRL identity, without the need for reliance on any outside party or inside man. Then later, re-exchange it for established/fiat currency with the use of an OTC broker.

This does not make it easier, though. If you are going to take that route, you might as well keep it as fiat and launder it that way as it's going to end up in that fiat account anyway. You can't just convert back and forth without identity checks and validations. There will always be ways around this for advanced criminals, but there would be for any system. Fiat remains the easiest way, IMO.

This is all kind of a moot point, though, as it was Juan who brought money laundering into the discussion as the reason why Binance was blocked, which is not the case. It was blocked entirely on the premise that they don't want people to use crypto, at all, because it's a threat to the centralised model. This, to me, is a form of fascism as they are dictating to people what they can do with their own money. They want to keep peoples money safe, they declared, but it's fine if they want to gamble all their money away on Bet 365, it doesn't matter then, lol.

That's the point I'm making.

@Juan, you still haven't answered my question.

 

[Juan]

I promise that I'm not just doing a tit for tat back and forth about this for the sake of pettiness as there really is an issue with the banks restricting access, and it has nothing to do with money laundering. They will say all sorts of things, but actions speak louder than words, and it's obvious that they don't want people trading this asset class. At least countries like China and India just say it as it is and say it's banned and you can't use it. Countries like the US are supposed to represent freedom, so instead of just saying we want to ban it, they put on a front and pretend to give equal rights whilst throwing a ton of bureaucracy at everything.

Banks also blocked my friend's account, an expat with money in Singapore that relocated to Spain, when he tried to wire his money back from Singapore. And this was just cash. Banks are required to check all this to comply with money laundering provisions.

 

[Ed209]

Watch all of this, @Juan, as it kind of explains in layman's terms what crypto and Web 3.0 is all about (and it should be interesting to you as he talks about big tech like Google and Facebook). This is why I've never understood why you're so anti-crypto because it seems that your whole ethos is a perfect fit for it.



I'm actively involved in various layer 1's and Web 3.0 projects.

 

[Juan]

Apparently the IMF has told the Bank of England not to delay raising rates... Central bankers are totally incompetent, useless creatures...