From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:45:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Surprise - Anonymous Journalist Opposes Laundering [3/4]
Message-ID: <199801101640.RAA00139@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



	Part 3 "Our Enemy: the Journalist" [3/4]

				[3/4]
Whitewash	[The Predictable Agenda Revealed]
All these developments suggest that the world's existing ["]defences["]
against ["]dirty["] money are ["]inadequate["]. [And we all know what their
definition of "adequate" would be.] [*]Banking secrecy is a serious 
problem[*]. As the table shows, bankers in a number of "high-priority"
centres can still be prosecuted [heaven forbid!] if they hand over
confidential information to officials investigating laundering cases.

[So, absent probable cause that a _real_ crime has been committed, 
"officials" must be allowed to engage in fishing expeditions without
repercussion.
Therefore, we must give these "officials" carte blanche access to:
   1) private (actually public) bank data.
   2) safe deposit boxes (send a spare key to FATF when you rent a box).
   3) private records (unrecoverable encryption made a felony).
   4) physical warrantless searches of "suspected currency smugglers"
	(on the spot or no-knock).
Carte Blanche access is the ultimate goal.
All done "confidentially" you understand. I won't tell the victim if you 
don't. And people would wonder why I don't have a domestic bank account.]

It also shows that several of these centres have yet to extend their
anti-laundering regimes to cover non-bank financial institutions. [the 
operative word being _yet_.] No wonder some financial poLiceman claim they
are being asked to fight laundrymen with one hand tied behind their backs. 
[a straightjacket and possibly rope + oak tree would be appropriate <g>]

As if that were not bad [good] enough, the current approach to tackling the
[non-]problem of onshore and offshore laundering havens is flawed, too. The
FATF has done some useful work, [like what exactly?] but it has not been
tough enough with slowcoaches. It only censured Turkey several years after
it became a member. [Turkey should tell this ATF to go take a flying leap]
And it has yet to take action against Austria, another member, which still
has anonymous savings accounts [which due to their membership in the 
reconstituted Holy Roman Empire they will eventually sell out or at best
phase out with grandfather clauses] for its citizens [and many non-citizens 
as well, leave our Sparbuchen alone thank you very much] despite an FATF
[*]edict[*] banning anonymity.

[A most curious use of language: "despite an edict banning anonymity". And 
just who is it that supposedly granted FATF the authority to issue _edicts_
(as in dictate, force, coerce) or _ban_ a single goddamn thing?! 

Apparently a collective "hive" of enthroned, unaccountable, power-usurping 
bureaucrats are justifying their existence by rendering decisions "for" the
little people and sees itself fit to spew forth proclamations unbeknownst to
many under imaginary authority it has granted unto itself. How very regal of
them.

Is said edict (banning anon accounts) an example of the "useful work" this 
_anonymous_ journalist refers to? The irony is delicious. Does this 
represent the type of government-by-edict rule that he/she/it finds so 
agreeable? Perhaps she-he-it spends too much time attending WTO meetings and
schmoozing with those-who-know-better to discuss the latest nuances of
negotiated edict proclamations. 

You (anonymous, E-Communist writer) need to get out more, buckwheat.
How about putting this edict thingy up for a vote of the Austrian people?
An antiquated idea I realize but it would give you and your associates an
opportunity to further propagandize the great unwashed to the cause of
Total State Control.

OTOH, then these aspiring fiscal tyrants would have to crawl out of their
committee meetings and explain to the rabble why it is so urgent that 
private banking be abolished (confidentially, of course).

Besides which, owners of anonymous accounts like them just the way they are
and would find another way to keep their property out of your greedy little
paws regardless (even if you did somehow manage to convince 50.0001% of the
vooters to help you fight non-crime. "We" don't have to show you no 
steeenkin' passport).]

Some anti-laundering campaigners say that criticism of members in evaluation
reports is often watered down for diplomatic reasons [how can an evaluation
be watered down when it starts with zero substance?]. "Every report was put
through so many whitewashes", complains Sue Thornhill, [parasite, ] a 
consultant on laundering to the British Bankers Association. The FATF's fans
[such as they are outside the GovernMedia sphere of influence] admit that 
some plea-bargaining goes on, but insist that it does not let countries off 
lightly. 
[What is this utter nonsense: 
	"plea-bargaining" (?)
	"does not let countries off lightly" (?)
Are representatives of "guilty" nations hauled off to some FATF Star Chamber
and forced to perform lewd acts with smart cards?!?]

Whatever the truth, [the truth being that money laundering is not a crime;
acknowledgment of which would run counter to your basic philosophical 
premise and thus be dismissed as extremist libertarian kookery] there is an
even bigger problem with the task force's approach [the problem is the 
existence of FATF and other agencies of its ilk]. Every time it persuades 
a financial centre [against it's best interests] to crack down on 
laundering, crooks will move to new ones [as would any normal person who
places a value on customer service]. As the amount of money that comes with
them grows, so the incentive for these other havens to change their ways 
will dimish. [until they become fat and happy like Helvetia, then they begin
to evidence a strange desire to look 'respectable' in front of the 'world 
community' and now readily strap on the knee-pads for their pimp: the United
States] The FATF seems to be hoping that peer-group pressure is the 
solution. [Oh yeah? Just because your friends have abolished (de facto) bank
secrecy and have ceased jailing informants and foreign moles does that mean
you're going to do it as well? What would your mother say about that?] It 
has set up a regional Caribbean task [tax] force and is ["]supporting["] the
creation of an Asia-Pacific anti-laundering group. [picture an enterprising
cretin at FATF calling some string-puller over at the IMF: 'Tell them to 
give us all the access we want to foreign account holder data or else no 
more taxpayer coerced bailout for you Asians'...] But even if this attempt 
to sign up new members works, such an approach will take a long time. And 
there is a danger that many members will sign up to get the FATF's badge of 
respectability [and the cushy do-nothing jobs that go along with it for 
political hacks and career bureaucrats], and then drag their feet over 
implementing its recommendations. [confusing, are they _edicts_ or 
_recommendations_ ?]

So are economic sanctions against refuseniks the answer? The sort of
"economic warfare" envisaged by Senator Kerry is not. Banning 
citizen[-hostage]s of a few rich countries from dealing with known
laundromats would hurt legitimate businesses, while crafty launderers would
find ways round the restrictions. 
[Senator Kerry, (Looter-Taxachusetts): "Yeah right, that's a wimpy 
apologetic journalist pretending to present both sides of an issue, let's 
get real here, no _legitimate_ business would need to have an Aruban
bank account when our local S&L offers backup withholding, full disclosure 
on request to any and all government employees, demands for SSN's and 
fingerprints, deposit insurance and CTRs, in short all the protection and 
benefits the surveillance state has to offer. So those who have the mistaken
notion that all assets DO NOT belong to the state and DO NOT submit to the 
fact that those assets they are trying to keep from our grasp belong TO US 
and are only on temporary loan to individual shee, um, people need to be set
straight and made an example of. I say we must pull another Panama and 
invade these small narco-terrorist haven countries and shut all their banks
down permanently. If citizens of these pathetic excuses for states want a 
bank account, our good Bwoston banks are more than happy to serve them."]
That leaves Mr Tanzi's proposed strategy as the only current proposal with 
something to recommend it. Of course, getting an international agreement on
minimum anti-laundering standards will not be an easy task. But it is worth
a try. For without a concerted global response [= global surveillance of 
every transaction = dictatorial global bureaucracies] to the problem of 
["]dirty["] money, the world's money-laundering machine will be off on yet 
another devastating [to whom?] cycle.

[Summary:
Banking secrecy is a serious problem.
Unreported asset possession is a serious problem.
Non-governmental ComSec is a serious problem.
Non-intelligence-agency laundering is a serious problem.
Anonymous ownership transfers are a serious problem.
Unreported cash transactions are a serious problem.
Cash is a serious problem.
Teenage fucking is a serious problem.
Non-alcohol, non-prescription drug consumption is a serious problem.
Contraband smuggling is a serious problem.
The emerging e-cash threat is a serious problem.
Anonymous accounts are a serious problem.
Bearer shares are a serious problem.
Multiple identities are a serious problem.
Unregistered gun ownership is a serious problem.
Inadequate government staffing is a serious problem.
Inadequate international cooperation is a serious problem.
Inadequate tax revenue is a serious problem.
Freedom is a serious problem.
Unacceptable. These activities will be stopped. You will be assimilated.

These FATF swine need a good ass-kicking.]

> E-Communist
> 25 St James's Street
> London SW1A 1HG
> www.economist.com


Fly Low


S'n'S

Pro:__Money Laundering__Self Medication__Militia Grade Arms__Realism________
__Indirect Taxation___________Adults___________Individual Irrevocable Right$
} 	Smurf N Sniff		Non-Member, Gunfiscators of Canberra	   |
} 	P.O. Bunker 6669	"We don't want to be like those paranoid   |
} 	Hohoe, Ghana		Americans, this is a social DemoBracy."    |
} 	fn-fal@edict.gov.un	+233 55 1234	boycott GovernMedia NLC    |
ANTI:_feral guVermin____Vooters__________blue hellmutts______nihilists______
__biometric herd management__"(The) children"__state granted privilege_____!---------------------------------------------------------------------------