When people get scammed and money is transferred out of their bank, why isn’t there a paper trail? If the money is transferred into some foreign country that won’t allow tracing, why not just exclude those countries from the banking system?
In: 7825
There is a paper trail.
Transferring money electronically by the system itself requires knowing what bank it’s going to(routing number) and what account it’s going to.
There’s other ways to send money but the second half of the question about a network means it would likely use this.
Sending gift cards or something pre-paid in the similar to cash section is different but even then sometimes can be traced.
The implications of cutting off an entire country, negatively impacting their ability to do business on a global level, for a scam would be an extreme measure.
To even get that kind of discussion, it literally take[s an act of war.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kiro7.com/news/trending/what-is-swift-what-happens-if-russians-are-cut-off-it/HIUXX6HZK5DV7GPT77ETSI6XDY/%3FoutputType%3Damp) A few scammers in a country are not equivalent at the geopolitical level as an invasion of another country.
Other things have happened like banning certain banks from operating with a country’s citizens, like the US restricting a bank that was used to [launder North Korean money. ](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18iht-north.4255039.html)
Under the Patriot Act, there are ways to freeze accounts and some other things but that’s for terrorism.
Even then, targeting one country’s banks due to fraud just kind of slows the problem. Country A bans Country B. No other country bans another.
So they transfer to neutral Country C instead, then B.
Is country A just supposed to ban all transfers then to stop this?
Cutting off from financial networks took several countries to agree, otherwise there’s ways to still get to the restricted country because it’s well… a network.
Latest Answers