Indian police arrest alleged kingpin of U.S. tax scam

[Zzzz1]

Really? Did IB or any other broker ever hold or freeze your funds for any significant period? Are you talking about the holding of funds for few days until the funds settle as example of frozen assets? Lol. Your ridiculous example that banks or institutions impose limits on how and what and how much you can transfer has nothing whatsoever to do with freezing assets. It is a decision by compliance departments to be on the safe side and hence they exceed legal requirements in order for them to stay out of trouble. Even the refusal by banks to handle American nationals' assets internationally has nothing to do with freezing assets but is a business decision because cost, associated with complying with legal requirements by US regulators by far exceed the benefits many banks receive by managing Americans' assets overseas. You are as so often conflating a well defined problem and topic (freezing of assets) with all other sorts of issues, throw it all in one pot, stir well, and believe you have a good point at hand. You failed to comprehend and debate the issue here.

Volpunter indeed rose from the dead, but still with a massive candle up his ass.
You can do what you want with your cash if the court does not freeze the assets ??
Why for so many accounts in various countries (i know cases in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Latvia, banks refused to do anything else with the remaining funds but transfer them to same name accounts, with some variations, like 30% could be withdrawn in cash in Switzerland, or funds could be send back to the initial sender ) Talking about lots of cases in Switzerland and Hong Kong, and Hsbc in HK seems to be still holding funds of many account holders which displeased their reborn compliance department, despite neither a court decision nor even a court process against the account holders.

 

[Zzzz1]

Are you addressing me or someone else with this hogwash. How did we get from freezing assets to Shenzhen? Cheap attempt at character assassination? Admitting sex tourist wanting to debate how unfair it is that some who engage in highly suspicious cash transactions run risk to have their assets frozen? How about you first sort out the possible legal ramifications you are facing on a daily basis as sex tourist first before you look to take a stab at playing legal expert on other issues?

Not only i believe you have absolutely no clue about Shenzhen despite commenting about the city, but sometimes i wonder if u even know hk besides ramming candles up each other backside with your ngo mates, while praying for an end from mainland subjugation.

 

[zdreg]

Can you take a look and check the link I posted? What is wrong with you? It contains everything you need to know regarding bank laws.

" What is wrong with you? " that is part of your problem. you personalize. instead of just posting the link again you look for trouble by personalizing.
"it contains everything you need to know regarding bank laws." does it say everything about how the law is applied.
here is how the law was applied. "The IG took a random sample of 278 IRS forfeiture actions in cases where structuring was the primary basis for seizure. The report found that in 91 percent of those cases, the individuals and business had obtained their money legally." keep on denying reality.
if you keep trolling and personalizing remarks to me I will micro exam every remark you make for its validity. is that clear?
if you don't like what I just said you can complain to baron.

 

[Zzzz1]

You can do whatever pleases you. It is you and your ilk who troll everyone on this website, you who has nothing better to do with your time than finding people who post with multiple aliases (as if anyone cares on an anonymous website). It is you who poses threats (threats that are completely hilarious as I am the one in each thread I post in who calls for truth and fact based discussions).

You continue to ignore the thousands of illegal money laundering cases that were prevented by this law. Are you aware what sums of money were laundered in the US and elsewhere before banks were forced to tighten their anti money laundering policies? That some legitimate cash transfers get caught up in this every now and then is a regretful but unavoidable side effect. I am sure everybody who could prove legitimate reasons to transfer multiple times amounts that were slightly below the 10k mark got their money back as soon as proof of funding source was provided. Not a single case exists to my knowledge where a legitimate transfer was intercepted and money stolen from the legitimate owner of the funds. Please provide proof if you think otherwise else stop barking up the wrong trees.

" What is wrong with you? " that is part of your problem. you personalize. instead of just posting the link again you look for trouble by personalizing.
"it contains everything you need to know regarding bank laws." does it say everything about how the law is applied.
here is how the law was applied. "The IG took a random sample of 278 IRS forfeiture actions in cases where structuring was the primary basis for seizure. The report found that in 91 percent of those cases, the individuals and business had obtained their money legally." keep on denying reality.
if you keep trolling and personalizing remarks to me I will micro exam every remark you make for its validity. is that clear?
if you don't like what I just said you can complain to baron.

 

[luisHK]

Really? Did IB or any other broker ever hold or freeze your funds for any significant period? Are you talking about the holding of funds for few days until the funds settle as example of frozen assets? Lol. Your ridiculous example that banks or institutions impose limits on how and what and how much you can transfer has nothing whatsoever to do with freezing assets. It is a decision by compliance departments to be on the safe side and hence they exceed legal requirements in order for them to stay out of trouble..

You bringing brokers into it just hints further you have little idea of what we are talking about - although indeed some brokers have been holding onto funds for dubious reasons-, and one can apreciate the slight contradiction from the above with your previous quote (from yesterday mind you, not last year)

Bullshit. They can refuse you as customer if you fail their KYC interview. But they can't confiscate your cash. They can temporary hold it for very short time but if a court does not freeze the assets then you can do what pleases you with your cash.

Besides, you are most welcome to show such a perverted individual as myself where all the fun you claim there is, is actually in SZ, because I gotta spend a lot of time there and it still looks like one of the dryiest places on earth, so I'm curious to read about your expert's opinion.
But the kind of experts who comes up with "
Did IB or any other broker ever hold or freeze your funds for any significant period? Are you talking about the holding of funds for few days until the funds settle as example of frozen assets "
(Oh yes, you added a "Lol" that looked even smarter... )
when funds held by banks are discussed, and banks holding assets indefinetely without a court decision have been the rage for the last couple of years, we know what their expertise is worth.

 

[Zzzz1]

the rage of the past couple of years? Like who? Who had his money confiscated even after providing proof of legitimate funding sources? Who are those secret, anonymous individuals? And who did not get their money back? Care to inform all of us? Because if you do not know anybody nor have evidence such happened why not just simply shutting up and moving on to topics you know more about?

when funds held by banks are discussed, and banks holding assets indefinetely without a court decision have been the rage for the last couple of years, we know what their expertise is worth.

 

[luisHK]

In HK those customers are almost as ubiquitous as the cross border taxis you managed not to know the existence of, lots of offshore but also HK companies which accounts the reborn and atrocious compliance department in HSBC didn't like, although they had been absolutely fine the decade before. And there is a big difference between a bank and a court disagreeing over the legality of funds, which you claimed yourself a few posts back, but seem to have forgotten by now. No surprise.
You can google the issue, or ask your CPA, if you really don't know any of them - I suspect you won t find them in your favourite candle waving event.
In Switzerland, at least europeans who'd held accounts there for decades, sometimes generations, and the banks under pressure decided they could only send the funds to same name accounts after they decided it was too risky for them to hold funds probably hidden from overseas authorities - in Ticino a customer actually sued the bank and the court forced the bank to hand out the customers the contents of his accounts in cash, which shows how legal the bank process was. Happened to lots of people. Not many have the ressources or energy to sue their banks, good luck suing HSBC

 

[Zzzz1]

Goodness, mate, mate, mate.....have you really worked ever in this industry? Are you aware of the industry trends going on? Are you aware that compliance regulations across the board were strengthened and that banks and hedge funds and most any financial institution was forced to adopt or else stop operating? I am sure you actually know but you continue to play dumb. So yes, years ago, regulations were more relaxed, now with free cross-border movements, bit coins, and all sorts of increased cash flows regulators are demanding more stringent answers to where money originated from. And I think that's a good thing. Are you aware that most every chemical compound that goes into synthetic opioid production originates from China? Are you aware of the shady dealings of some HK and Chinese firms in the city and across the border? Without a clampdown this would all revert back to a swamp full of corruption, triad business, and illegal dealings. I mean, come on mate, the news are littered with shady business operations, insider trading cases, shady underwritings, IPOs, and the likes even with tightened regulations.

You can play stupid and clueless as much as you want. Fact remains: Anyone who has funds in his or her name in a bank account and can account for legitimate funding sources will have full access to his or her bank account. If someone diseases the hair needs to prove that he or she has legitimate rights to the funds in the account and will be given access. Is it perfect? 100% ensured to always go right? Probably not but I take the 5 or 10 exceptions any day over the filth and bullshit many players are trying to come up with would those regulations not exist.

What are you postulating really? You seem to be willing to underwrite all sorts of bullshit but never clarify what you actually stand for. You say you have kids but at the same time enjoy sharing with all of us how you delight in whores and prostitutes. You are against regulations to ensure the secure transfer of funds and the proper sourcing of funds. You seem to be against any regulations. Are you an anarchist? I just try to understand where you are coming from. We can continue to bicker or we can raise white flags, understand where each of us is coming from and avoid crossing paths in case our base convictions are incompatible. Either way, I don't mind. But I its utter crap to claim HSBC or the likes are holding onto funds for illegitimate reasons.

In HK those customers are almost as ubiquitous as the cross border taxis you managed not to know the existence of, lots of offshore but also HK companies which accounts the reborn and atrocious compliance department in HSBC didn't like, although they had been absolutely fine the decade before. And there is a big difference between a bank and a court disagreeing over the legality of funds, which you claimed yourself a few posts back, but seem to have forgotten by now. No surprise.
You can google the issue, or ask your CPA, if you really don't know any of them - I suspect you won t find them in your favourite candle waving event.
In Switzerland, at least europeans who'd held accounts there for decades, sometimes generations, and the banks under pressure decided they could only send the funds to same name accounts after they decided it was too risky for them to hold funds probably hidden from overseas authorities - in Ticino a customer actually sued the bank and the court forced the bank to hand out the customers the contents of his accounts in cash, which shows how legal the bank process was. Happened to lots of people. Not many have the ressources or energy to sue their banks, good luck suing HSBC

 

[luisHK]

Long post full of moral considerations, and probably lacking comparative experience with HSBC which has in most countries much tighter requirements (many say insane) than the local banks, more to do with them panicking over the deffered prosecution agreement than sensible aml considerations. You could have sum it up by :

"I'm sorry for my mistakes in the posts below, this certainly doesn't apply in the current regulatory environment "

. Your assets can at most be frozen but that requires a court order. And the burden of proof to have someone's assets frozen is very high for good reason.

Bullshit. They can refuse you as customer if you fail their KYC interview. But they can't confiscate your cash. They can temporary hold it for very short time but if a court does not freeze the assets then you can do what pleases you with your cash.

You're welcome.

 

[Zzzz1]

You are wrong and you know it. What a jacka$$

Long post full of moral considerations, and probably lacking comparative experience with HSBC which has in most countries much tighter requirements (many say insane) than the local banks, more to do with them panicking over the deffered prosecution agreement than sensible aml considerations. You could have sum it up by :

"I'm sorry for my mistakes in the posts below, this certainly doesn't apply in the current regulatory environment "





You're welcome.