[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well if you're intent on being an a-hole, let me explain . Wire transfers are sender initiated. In order to wire money from point a to point b you have to tell your bank what point b is. Now let's supposed the DOJ isn't run by slobbering idiots. If they can figure out who the bad guys are at point b, they can just tell your bank not to send wire transfers to point b.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was you, not me, who was first the a--hole in this exchange with your response to my first post in this thread which was either ignoant of how SWIFT worked (or possibly SWIFT's existence) or deliberately misinformative.

As for your assertions after about how easy it would be for the DoJ to shut this down I am tending to think you are more misinformed than deliberately spreading false information. Or do you still not see that it would be incredibly easy (albeit expensive) to set up an e-wallet in the EU that would be beyond enforcement from the US DOJ? And do you not see how burdensome this would be on US banks to have a constantly updated series of Swift account numbers to police? And that SWIFT doesn't give a flyng piss about anything but making money? Remember, the DOJ can only use or process information gathered through snooping for terrorist activity against terrorists and for no other crimes including money laundering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you think difficult is getting a list from the DOJ each month or quarter then I'm completely out of line.

Let me see how hard it is to establish an illegal (in the DOJ's eyes) money system. I log into Stars, Full Tilt or whoever and look for the payment system I haven't shut down yet. I see a SWIFT method. I deposit $50 via this payment method and the $50 shows up in my online gaming account. I write down the account info they gave me and I add it to the list of rogue financial institutions that I publish each month and send to every US bank each month. Holy smokes that was hard. Nobody will ever do that.