this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
189 points (99.5% liked)
news
182 readers
1112 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know this is an extreme case, but IMO it's not the banks job to punish criminals. They should continue business as usual, in case the person was wrongfully convicted. It's the governments job to freeze or seize assets. In this particular case this may feel uncomfortable, but you wouldn't want the bank to pro-actively, maybe even automatically freeze your account when you forget to pay a parking ticket or so, because this is where this is going.
Yeah i have to agree, banks shouldn't even have the option to just decide to process the money.
Business should not facilitate crime. It’s illegal, as well as immoral.
Private companies should not be independent judges with enforcement powers.
They have no problem censoring legal NSFW content. But when it comes to actual crimes, laissez faire.
They're not independent judges, they have guidelines and tools for illegal practices. They ignore those for rich friends. They ignore them for people that pay them a lot, but they still get in trouble for facilitating money laundering every now and again when those people aren't connected enough.