> Even if it is government under the hood you have to know what you're accused of.
This is exactly why the whole process is suspect. The government farms out the policing of certain financial crimes onto the financial institutions as a prerequisite for operating the business. If the government came along and froze your bank account you’d have a right to ask why and a right to get some answers. But instead the government pawns the responsibility off onto businesses and then prohibits those businesses from telling you why.
And so the BSA and Patriot Act effectively allow the government to take your property and take away your right to confront the government about why they took your property. And it’s all on merely a vague suspicion of misconduct. No proof whatsoever.
I can’t help but laugh at the irony— the federal government laundering their otherwise unconstitutional activities through the banks.
Interesting to notice the censorship of speech on social media is implemented the same way. The government does not remove undesirable information directly, instead it calls up all major platforms "for a chat" and tells them to voluntarily remove it, or face Congressional hearings and likely further unpleasantries down the road. An offer they can not refuse. Looks like they think they found a loophole in the Constitution and they are going to mine it for all the power they can get from it.
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.
This is exactly why the whole process is suspect. The government farms out the policing of certain financial crimes onto the financial institutions as a prerequisite for operating the business. If the government came along and froze your bank account you’d have a right to ask why and a right to get some answers. But instead the government pawns the responsibility off onto businesses and then prohibits those businesses from telling you why.
And so the BSA and Patriot Act effectively allow the government to take your property and take away your right to confront the government about why they took your property. And it’s all on merely a vague suspicion of misconduct. No proof whatsoever.
I can’t help but laugh at the irony— the federal government laundering their otherwise unconstitutional activities through the banks.