Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm trying to understand your position here:

You think AML/KYC laws, as they currently exist, are unconstitutional?

edit:

That's a fine position to have, but it's a fringe one, and I don't think you should be offering it as a reason why Stripe does what it does that's generally accepted by everyone else.



No. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional which is why I said “otherwise unconstitutional”. And you’re (perhaps deliberately) completely misunderstanding and conflating my two comments. I am quite confident that OP’s problems with Stripe are AML related which is not at all a “fringe” position.


> I am quite confident that OP’s problems with Stripe are AML related

I'm curious as to why you think that? Is this a way way more common thing than I expect? Or is "My startup uses Stripe Connect to accept payments on behalf of our clients" a raging red AML flag I don't recognise (I've never done that, so it could easily be)?


I’m confident it’s an AML issue because they’re getting stonewalled which is standard operating procedure when a Suspicious Activity Report has been filed. I don’t think using Stripe Connect is the red flag.

The thing with SARs is that they tend to be cascading as OP described. So if I (innocently and totally coincidentally) do a transaction with someone who has been flagged for suspicious activity my account might now be flagged as “higher risk” for suspicious activity and will be monitored more closely.

And, if they decide they’ve found suspicious activity in my account then everyone who does business with me is at risk of having their accounts flagged as “higher risk” for closer monitoring and so on.

And the bank isn’t allowed to tip anyone off because if any of those accounts are actually laundering money they might suddenly withdraw it and then the “lead” from the SAR is moot. It’s actually a crime to notify someone about the suspicious transaction(s). Which is why you get stonewalled.


Those laws certainly feel like guilty until proven innocent or in many cases, guilty no chance to prove innocence.


Exactly. Not fringe. Part of the normal struggle for existence.


It'd be unconstitutional, were the government in charge, without due process.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: