At 04:01 AM 10/14/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
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It is unpublished, but he kindly allowed to me describe it in a paper I wrote that discussed whether a bank would ever want to take the risk of allowing bank accounts where it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).
Are you talking about ANONYMOUS accounts, or merely CONFIDENTIAL ones? (Anonymous accounts, as I use the term, are ones in which even the bank doesn't know the owner.) I think you're lumping these two things together; I was not. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com