On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 04:28 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
It is unpublished, but he kindly allowed to me describe it in a paper I wrote that discussed whether a bank would ever want to take the risk of allowing bank accounts where it did not know the identity of the customer.
And I don't think that a bank can ever be embarrassed (assuming bank accounts are anonymous) by it being revealed that some particular bad guy kept his money there, any more than other cash-based (anonymous) businesses are embarrassed if it is revealed that some bad guy used their services.
I would refer you to Union Bank of Switzerland in the late 80's (kidnapping), BCCI (drug and intelligence money), BMI (drug money/offshore insurance fraud), PNC Bank (accounting fraud), and a host of others I won't bother to list. Banks do suffer from these disclosures, in many cases quite severely. (PNC bank was nearly ruined by their fraud harboring disclosures). Why exactly is it that you think frauds, seizures, compelled customer referrals and the like go unreported to the authorities in something like 75% of the cases? Why exactly is it that you think banks seek to open offshore branches with autonomy and distance from the home branches? Answer: Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers. I know it's a lot to ask, but please stick to areas you know please, rather than making up facts to support your arguments.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li