Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
drchaos wrote:We should slam them back for being one of the biggest drug consumers in the world. If they cut their nasty habit there would be no drug money to launder.
drchaos wrote:We should slam them back for being one of the biggest drug consumers in the world. If they cut their nasty habit there would be no drug money to launder.
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:drchaos wrote:We should slam them back for being one of the biggest drug consumers in the world. If they cut their nasty habit there would be no drug money to launder.
Liberals have stated that they want all forms of drugs legalized, the list not only includes Ganja but also Heroine and Cocaine.
Liberals make up most of the voting population in the US, so goodluck on getting them so slam themselves for their drug consumers.
drchaos wrote:We should slam them back for being one of the biggest drug consumers in the world. If they cut their nasty habit there would be no drug money to launder.
VexXx Dogg wrote:What is the likely impact of this?
Redman wrote:VexXx Dogg wrote:What is the likely impact of this?
Well it says that institutions dealing with accounts here should ensure they ( us institutions)following REASONABLE guidelines.....but at the same time not use this action as a cause to de risk....in a wholesale manner
They also acknowledged that GORTT has made commitments to get this stuff done.
Review of Guidance Regarding Jurisdictions Having Strategic AML/CFT deficiencies
U.S. financial institutions also should consider the risks associated with the AML/CFT deficiencies of the countries identified under this section (Bosnia and Herzegovina , Ethiopia , Iraq , Sri Lanka , Syria , Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia , Vanuatu , and Yemen ).[16] With respect to these jurisdictions, U.S. financial institutions are reminded of their obligations to comply with the general due diligence obligations under 31 CFR § 1010.610(a) in addition to their general obligations under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(h) and its implementing regulations.[17] As required under 31 CFR § 1010.610(a), covered financial institutions should ensure that their due diligence programs, which address correspondent accounts maintained for foreign financial institutions, include appropriate, specific, risk-based, and, where necessary, enhanced policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report known or suspected money laundering activity conducted through or involving any correspondent account established, maintained, administered, or managed in the United States. Such reasonable steps should not, however, put into question a financial institution’s ability to maintain or otherwise continue appropriate relationships with customers or other financial institutions, and should not be used as the basis to engage in wholesale or indiscriminate de-risking of any class of customers or financial institutions. FinCEN also reminds financial institutions of previous interagency guidance on providing services to foreign embassies, consulates, and missions.[18]
I wondering the same thing. I browse through the article and eh seen nun bout blacklist. Sensationalism againpaid_influencer wrote:is more a watch list than a blacklist
why to OP call it a blacklist, we have to ask kamla.
mero wrote:I wondering the same thing. I browse through the article and eh seen nun bout blacklist. Sensationalism againpaid_influencer wrote:is more a watch list than a blacklist
why to OP call it a blacklist, we have to ask kamla.
hydroep wrote:Buh...is Kamla fault...
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests