> sent from a legitimate government agency email domain,
DMARC-verified-sent from a legitimate [...] domain? -> Someone pwned a mailbox at an agency? I'm sure they would've spun the story into "the government was hacked, not us" in that case.
Or "sent from" a legitimate [...] domain? -> Spoofed envelope sender / FROM? Then Revolut's simply been had by the nose. If the domain is indeed a government domain, and does not publish DMARC records, then a due diligence check on who they're sending such personal info (ie, call that purported government agency up on the phone) would suit them.
After all, they're very pedantic about me running their app on a phone with an unlocked bootloader. I'd then hope that they'd be symmetrically pedantic about verifying whoever they're sending my info to.
Revolut is a platform which enables money laundering, tax evasion, welfare fraud and sanctions workarounds. It needs to be cracked down on, not lauded as a unicorn or allowed to IPO.
Without specific arguments on what Revolut consistently does that no other bank (e.g. HSBC, wells-fargo etc.) do, you're just yelling at money shaped clouds.
Not at all, if you send many crypto transactions to Revolut that is unexplained, I guarantee you that you'll get banned, have you actually tried? It's way stricter than exchanges (which leads to the same thing as you have a physical/virtual card offered by them nowadays).
Revolut is just like any bank? It's normal to want money/assets (if you are wealthy) scattered across multiple jurisdictions. I don't personally know any person that has good wealth without having bank accounts in HK, SG or the likes...
And Revolut itself is particularly strict, receive 5 random unexplained payments and it's almost sure that you'll get banned and you'll receive the very known email stating that you must give them some bank info to forward your money somewhere else.
Many people also care about their privacy, exposing all your wealth, assets and history to a specific government doesn't sound really reasonable to me.
Also, Money laundering is easy to do regardless of the jurisdiction, in the US you can just setup an LLC for a "SaaS", add Stripe, get ton of virtual cards with crypto (no KYC possible), make XXX transactions = "clean money", taxed (aka laundered, legal money), arriving on your bank of choice.
I'm pretty sure people that knows how to launder money (even a child could do it) knows how to do it without any sort of offshore bank, I don't really see how Revolut is aggravating this matter.
I don't see what's wrong with accepting BTC, ton of banks do all over the world and it's already available for a decade via exchanges and services, why wouldn't the banks directly offer this service?
Let's not mistake banks for tax authority, that's unrelated. Tax evasion and money laundering are two very different things, the latter almost always imply that taxes WILL BE PAID in the tax residence of the ultimate beneficial owner, just having money on a remote bank is not money laundering, people laundering money wants to buy properties, assets... you can generally only do so if you paid taxes. You can't buy properties easily if you just hide money somewhere.
To the contrary, someone laundering money absolutely does not want to show crypto as the source of funds as this is the most suspicious and might call for any sort of check. Generally speaking, it's easier to launder money without any crypto involved, you can just chain a few companies with nominees in different jurisdictions and just invoice each other and so-on, all done online without having to go anywhere.
To be clear again, people laundering money DO pay taxes, often a lot to appear as genuine as possible.
The ones that are successful at both money laundering AND tax evasion generally use very complex schemes that involve buying second citizenship, setting-up blurry structures... it's not done at a level of wealth that is Revolut compatible :)
> Revolut is a platform which enables money laundering, tax evasion, welfare fraud and sanctions workarounds.
An estimated 3% to 5% of the world's entire GDP is linked to criminal activities. The reasons are complex (for example drugs --not my call-- are mostly illegal and drug consumers have a responsibility in enriching cartels) but all the banks of the world "enable money laundering".
I've got many friends who have a Revolut account / card and although I don't have one, it just looks like a nice app / interesting cards (for all the perks and cashback IIUC) to have.
Sorry what? Perhaps this is jurisdiction specific but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. In Australia they’ve recently got their full banking license. I use it for personal and small business banking. Lots of useful features. Can you elaborate please?
> sent from a legitimate government agency email domain,
DMARC-verified-sent from a legitimate [...] domain? -> Someone pwned a mailbox at an agency? I'm sure they would've spun the story into "the government was hacked, not us" in that case.
Or "sent from" a legitimate [...] domain? -> Spoofed envelope sender / FROM? Then Revolut's simply been had by the nose. If the domain is indeed a government domain, and does not publish DMARC records, then a due diligence check on who they're sending such personal info (ie, call that purported government agency up on the phone) would suit them.
After all, they're very pedantic about me running their app on a phone with an unlocked bootloader. I'd then hope that they'd be symmetrically pedantic about verifying whoever they're sending my info to.
Revolut is a platform which enables money laundering, tax evasion, welfare fraud and sanctions workarounds. It needs to be cracked down on, not lauded as a unicorn or allowed to IPO.
You're describing a bank, any bank.
Without specific arguments on what Revolut consistently does that no other bank (e.g. HSBC, wells-fargo etc.) do, you're just yelling at money shaped clouds.
Clearly a strange take knowing Revolut is actually particularly strict with random unexplained transactions compared to most online banks.
Except bitcoin.
Not at all, if you send many crypto transactions to Revolut that is unexplained, I guarantee you that you'll get banned, have you actually tried? It's way stricter than exchanges (which leads to the same thing as you have a physical/virtual card offered by them nowadays).
So basically any kind of capitalist endeavor that works with bank transactions.
One that allows deposits in cryptocurrencies.
Plenty of banks are into that game nowadays.
Revolut is just like any bank? It's normal to want money/assets (if you are wealthy) scattered across multiple jurisdictions. I don't personally know any person that has good wealth without having bank accounts in HK, SG or the likes...
And Revolut itself is particularly strict, receive 5 random unexplained payments and it's almost sure that you'll get banned and you'll receive the very known email stating that you must give them some bank info to forward your money somewhere else.
Many people also care about their privacy, exposing all your wealth, assets and history to a specific government doesn't sound really reasonable to me.
Also, Money laundering is easy to do regardless of the jurisdiction, in the US you can just setup an LLC for a "SaaS", add Stripe, get ton of virtual cards with crypto (no KYC possible), make XXX transactions = "clean money", taxed (aka laundered, legal money), arriving on your bank of choice. I'm pretty sure people that knows how to launder money (even a child could do it) knows how to do it without any sort of offshore bank, I don't really see how Revolut is aggravating this matter.
Most banks don’t allow deposits in BTC for obvious reasons.
I don't see what's wrong with accepting BTC, ton of banks do all over the world and it's already available for a decade via exchanges and services, why wouldn't the banks directly offer this service?
Let's not mistake banks for tax authority, that's unrelated. Tax evasion and money laundering are two very different things, the latter almost always imply that taxes WILL BE PAID in the tax residence of the ultimate beneficial owner, just having money on a remote bank is not money laundering, people laundering money wants to buy properties, assets... you can generally only do so if you paid taxes. You can't buy properties easily if you just hide money somewhere.
To the contrary, someone laundering money absolutely does not want to show crypto as the source of funds as this is the most suspicious and might call for any sort of check. Generally speaking, it's easier to launder money without any crypto involved, you can just chain a few companies with nominees in different jurisdictions and just invoice each other and so-on, all done online without having to go anywhere.
To be clear again, people laundering money DO pay taxes, often a lot to appear as genuine as possible.
The ones that are successful at both money laundering AND tax evasion generally use very complex schemes that involve buying second citizenship, setting-up blurry structures... it's not done at a level of wealth that is Revolut compatible :)
> Revolut is a platform which enables money laundering, tax evasion, welfare fraud and sanctions workarounds.
An estimated 3% to 5% of the world's entire GDP is linked to criminal activities. The reasons are complex (for example drugs --not my call-- are mostly illegal and drug consumers have a responsibility in enriching cartels) but all the banks of the world "enable money laundering".
I've got many friends who have a Revolut account / card and although I don't have one, it just looks like a nice app / interesting cards (for all the perks and cashback IIUC) to have.
Absolutely.
Sorry what? Perhaps this is jurisdiction specific but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. In Australia they’ve recently got their full banking license. I use it for personal and small business banking. Lots of useful features. Can you elaborate please?
All Revolut users I’m personally aware of use it to hide their illegal/untaxed income from government authorities.
What makes this bank preferable for illegality? Asking for a friend.
[dead]
[dead]