SEATTLE — In his second-floor office above a hair salon in north Seattle, Ryan Kunkel is seated on a couch placing $1,000 bricks of cash — dozens of them — in a rumpled brown paper bag. When he finishes, he stashes the money in the trunk of his BMW and sets off on an adrenalized drive downtown, darting through traffic and nervously checking to see if anyone is following him.
Despite the air of criminality, there is nothing illicit in what Mr. Kunkel is doing. He co-owns five medical marijuana dispensaries, and on this day he is heading to the Washington State Department of Revenue to commit the ultimate in law-abiding acts: paying taxes. After about 25 minutes at the agency, Mr. Kunkel emerges with a receipt for $51,321.
“Carrying such large amounts of cash is a terrible risk that freaks me out a bit because there is the fear in my mind that the next car pulling up beside me could be the crew that hijacks us,” he said. “So, we have to play this never-ending shell game of different cars, different routes, different dates and different times.”
I wonder what Coinbase's policy is for these merchants. If customers could buy in bitcoin, then Coinbase could do the instant transaction to USD like they are doing for Overstock. Banks would only ever see the Coinbase activity. I'm certain they have been approached.
Are banks not 'shady?' Maybe it's just me, but after hearing the recordings of several wall street execs laughing that they were getting away with fraud on a truly unheard of scale, I tend to view any establishment that handles a lot of other peoples money as 'shady.' Think of it like this, we all tolerate our banks, because we have to, but do you really think that your bank is 100% squeaky clean? They're all crooks, some are just more open about it than others. /endrant
You are talking to someone who works in the compliance department of a bank, so smiles and shrugs I'm afraid I'm not the best target for these thoughts. :) Do I think banking could be improved? Yes, absolutely. Do I think what happened in 2009 was a scandal and that execs aren't getting punished enough for it? Yes, absolutely. Do I think that the bank I work for is 100% squeaky clean? ... well, it's kind of my job to make sure it is, so...
Firstly, I never write with the intent to cause offense. Are a vast majority of people following the letter of the law? Yes. Are there unfair laws in effect because of bribery and graft? Absolutely. Do a small number of individuals get away with breaking the law at the highest levels of finance/business? Most definitely. And to be hyper cynical for a moment, those who are breaking the law are betting on people like you feeling like you're doing your job. Mike in breaking bad says 'there are two kinds of heists, ones where guys get away with it, and ones that leave witnesses.'
I wasn't offended, but I've also been getting into arguments on the internet today, so I myself might come across as a bit harsh as all my patience has been wasted on Facebook. (Yes, it's a cesspool. Yes, I'm better than Facebook arguments. I know that. I get into Facebook arguments when I decide the value of the friendship is no longer greater than the value of correcting someone who is either grievously wrong or a complete asshole. Look, it's petty and stupid but whatever. It's like practice for real-life conflict.) Crux of the biscuit here. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that the letter of the law is followed maybe 9.99 out of 10 times. You don't know what the details of my job are, but rest assured, I do: no one is faking things in order to prove to me that we are complying with federal regulations. I have worked for three banks in the past three years doing this thing and honestly, no one is faking anything. Sometimes they're non-compliant and we have to work to correct the issue. Sometimes they're just compliant. But my job doesn't entail things like : reviewing loans to ensure that applicants are properly collateralized, etc. My job is more like : "Did we actually provide all the paperwork to the applicant that we were supposed to?" I have to test to ensure we are following the letter of federal regulations. At banks I've seen things that are bad customer experiences, but they're still legal. In addendum, my job and the requirements of my job have drastically changed in the past 3 years due to the financial crisis and the decisions banks made. Banks are more highly regulated now, by a long stretch. It's not possible to claim that the actions banks were able to take then would still happen now and that the people doing "my job" were just fooled. I ensure banks are complying with federal banking regulations. It's not the same as whether banks are lying (committing fraud) against, say, each other (as was the case with many banks, like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, in '09). I deal with things on the transactional level, the person-to-person one-on-one direct customer experience level. High level stuff is exactly the opposite. I'm not pretending I'm a hero or that I have divine oversight. I'm sure I sound a bit like a corporate shill and also maybe a bit naive. There is a difference, though, between what is outrageous and what is by-the-letter-of-the-law illegal, and oftentimes when people are dealing with banks they conflate the two. Should certain things be illegal? Absolutely, yes. SHould certain things like fraud on high levels have harsher punishments? Are white male CEOs way, way under-penalized especially compared to minorities and people who can't afford to "just throw money at problems"? Absolutely, yes. I'm not trying to defend that in any way. But what should be and what are are two different things and I work in a world of "what is."Are a vast majority of people following the letter of the law? Yes.
those who are breaking the law are betting on people like you feeling like you're doing your job.