At 12:45 AM 7/6/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Michael Moore wrote:
>
> > this has been an ongoing problem in commerce and banking and part of
> > the answer (not the right one perhaps) has been to introduce the 'know
> > your customer' policy. Unfortunately this also tends to cut across the
> > rights of the individual. So the problem is where do you draw the line
> > between the rights of the individual and the efforts to curb criminal
> > activities?
>
>Yes, that is the problem. Or more to the point how to eliminate any
>need
>to trade off between the two.
>
> > So far there has not been an effective solution to this problem. The
> > 'Authorities' take the stance of suspect everyone and introduce various
> > restrictive legislation (hence their 'know your customer' policy) as,
> > from their viewpoint, curbing criminal activities is more important
> > than civil rights.
>
>IMO, the most important thing for authorities throughout history and in
>all places has been to curb civil rights. The petty activities of their
>freelance criminal bretheren are just a convenient excuse.
>
>You gave a good description of the situation. But we need some new
>ideas for solutions.
A solution is to use jurisdictional arbitrage to limit the financial
exposure of the corporation and criminal exposure of the exchange
operators. In the U.S. only corporate officers and those evidencing direct
control (e.g., signing checks) can be held accountable for the activities
of the corporation. All of a U.S. corporation's officers can be foreign
citizens. If those citizens are in countries without extradition treaties
or which refuse extradition for activities which are not criminal in their
boarders...
steve
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
