[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Bank wires are very similar to ACH/EFT. Again, all they need is a list of offenders. I don't think the DOJ will have too hard of a time supplying a frequently updated list of offenders.

[/ QUOTE ] Really? The ECB on February first responded to the US subpoenas for SWIFT data by informing them that the request for assistanceand/or access from the DOJ in monitioring SWIFT transactions was outside the purview of their oversight.

As it stands, SWIFT in the wake of 911 agreed to allow limited access to their transactions to the US government in the hopes of aiding the US fight against terrorism. Since then they have fought aggressively to not expand the scope of that jurisdiction and will likely will continue to do so. The recent comments from the EU director re: protectionism were likely as a result of a FINCEN study (an incredibly dubious one but that type of incompetence has been standard in the exectuive branch under Bush) that was also objected to *again* by the American Banker's Associaton:

News that the US government had been secretly scrutinising suspect wire transfers sent over the interbank Swift network also prompted the ABA to raise objections to the database system. It was reported that the ABA preferred that the US continue with the Swift scheme over the database project because it was more targeted and allowed law enforcement officals to scan data without requiring new reporting requirements from banks.

My information is from finextra which has a vested interest here and European based banks do a significant portion of all SWIFT traffic.