Even more unintended consequences

The plan for tracking overseas wire transfers is
likely to intensify pressure on banks and other
financial institutions to comply with the
expanding base of provisions to fight money
laundering, industry and government officials
agreed. The government's aggressive tactics since
the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have already
caused something of a backlash among banking
compliance officers - and even some federal
officials, who say the effort has gone too far in
penalizing the financial sector for lapses and
has effectively criminalized what were once seen
as technical violations.

'Something' of a backlash? Don't wait too long to
make it significant or you'll go broke long before
you hear that sucking sound as the money leaves.

Learn how to say 'no' to people who have no business
with you.

Terrorist money has been difficult to identify,
much less seize, in part because terror
operations are conducted on relative shoestring
budgets. Planning and operations for the attacks
on Sept. 11, 2001, were believed to have cost Al
Qaeda $400,000 to $500,000, with no unusual
transactions found, according to the 9/11
commission, and the 1998 embassy bombings in East
Africa cost only $10,000.

So why are Da Regulators doing it? Pure PR to
make it look good to the rubes, it appears.

And here are some of the unintended
consequences of this crap...

Some smaller community banks have sold out to
larger companies for fear of increased liability,
banking officials say, and banks have dropped
some money-transmittal businesses that do
significant business overseas because of the risk.

Again...do you have your donkey yet? ...and your
wooden hoe? ...and your garden plot?

...as commerce becomes ever more difficult.

All of the report.