"Tainting" is a made up thing, people use "tainted" coins all the time without any issue. Crypto is occasionally being seized, mostly from poorly informed criminals, but it still requires a lot more work than seizing a bank account.
> "Tainting" is a made up thing, people use "tainted" coins all the time without any issue
People use dirty bills all the time with no issue, too. I need to look up who our background check provider is, but I've seen people flagged as a high risk (twice in client onboarding, once in a deal, once in an employment context) due to a known or probably-known wallet having a high frequency of high-risk transactions. That's, put simply, not visibility I have into anyone's bank account.
In two of the cases we added safeguards (at client and counterparty's cost) and in two I declined to proceed.
> People use dirty bills all the time with no issue, too.
Indeed. But cash is easier to seize: you just need to know where it's stashed vs crypto where you need to know where it's stashed + know a secret password/pin that may only exist inside someone's head. And even if you find something that might look like a crypto wallet, you may not even be able to verify that it is one or what it contains.
> I need to look up who our background check provider is, but I've seen people flagged as a high risk (twice in client onboarding, once in a deal, once in an employment context) due to a known or probably-known wallet having a high frequency of high-risk transactions. That's, put simply, not visibility I have into anyone's bank account.
That's just an overzealous policy that some financial institutions (aka AML "obliged entities") voluntarily decide to subject themselves to. Pretty much no one does such background checks for p2p and commercial transactions.
