upvote

points

by goodmythical4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby lxgr4 hours ago|
next
[-]
I recently had to confirm to a brokerage that I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities.

A sure sign of a legal team or possibly an entire legal system having lost the plot. Hopefully only the former.

reply
upvoteby wrs2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That’s simple CYA, and also ensures you’ve not only done the illegal activity, you’ve defrauded the brokerage and breached your contract with them, and they get a weak KYC defense as well.

Similar to the “Al Capone” instructions from the IRS:

>Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about these stickers all over Seattle saying you’re not allowed to conduct illegal activities on the premises…

reply
upvoteby janalsncm1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I still don’t understand the CYA though.

For the majority of banks, they do not want people to conduct illegal activity via their bank. For the minority of banks which don’t mind it, nothing stops them from adding the clause anyways. A cartel bank probably cannot use the existence of the clause as a defense if they’re still allowing illegal activity.

If the purpose is to allow the bank to terminate accounts suspected of illegal activity, my assumption is they can already terminate for much less than that.

reply
upvoteby wrs17 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
It’s not just that they don’t want it, it’s that they’re liable for it themselves if they should have known it was happening. Asking you adds one more small layer of “we discouraged illegal activity and we didn’t know about any”.
reply
upvoteby nickff3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This is probably a meek attempt at demonstrating compliance with Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Lawyers will often suggest this sort of thing, because the only cost is a slight inconvenience to the client, and it might suggest 'good faith' in the case of a prosecution or enforcement action.
reply
upvoteby AnimalMuppet3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So, the entire legal system.
reply
upvoteby josephg3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities.

My guess is that this is so they can ban any drug dealers from their site without consequence. "They violated our terms of service your honour!"

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby spalzdog3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
When it's in the contract, then it means that when you break the law you both break the law and the contract. SHould it be necessary? Perhaps not, but in some places that makes a meaningful difference.
reply
upvoteby AnimalMuppet3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Now I'm paranoid. To your knowledge, which places does it make a difference, and what difference does it make?
reply
upvoteby greycol1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In most places it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the legal process what it does do is give you a quicker simpler off ramp from the legal process (which reduces costs) and may stop some idiots even trying to sue in the first place.

"Do not iron clothes while on body" should not be required to not be found liable, but it does change the question in court from providing discovery for safety consideration, how comprehensive is the manual, how... and the costs involved with that to "Did the customer use the device in a way that was it was clearly labelled to not be used? Did any part of the product packaging or instructions contradict this warning? ...Dismissed".

reply
upvoteby fastball2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Legal matters are almost never black and white. If someone does something illegal using my service, and some other 3rd party sues me as party to that illegal behavior, from a legal perspective having a clause like "no criminal behavior allowed" in there makes it easier for your lawyers to argue "my client clearly didn't intend to authorize/facilitate such behavior". This argument is of course made much stronger if it is paired with behavior, like banning (or attempting to ban) the criminal user as soon as the activity was identified.

But if you are paranoid you should speak with a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby zephen4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant.

Perhaps not. The law, as automatically applied, often include implied warranties.

reply
upvoteby j_bizzle4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It's almost like the most effective way to publish without T&Cs is to just, you know, omit the section and publish what you want without T&Cs.
reply
upvoteby terrabiped3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Interesting question. I wonder what the default (implied) T&C would be if nothing has been explicitly stated. For example, publishing a source code without an explicit license doesn't make it open source.
reply
upvoteby volemo1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I guess it’d be whatever the other party’s lawyer can persuade the judge into.
reply
upvoteby awesome_dude2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies.

Because the law applies - by that I mean if you don't put a disclaimer in then the law takes the view that you do provide a warranty, etc.

reply
upvoteby volemo1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Does it take the view that I encourage/facilitate illegal use of my product unless I state otherwise in the T&C?
reply
upvoteby awesome_dude1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ask every account that has ever released information on drug use, lock picking, explosives manufacture, or "hacking" - they all say "for educational purposes only" for a damned good reason
reply