Asklemmy

43817 readers

905 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

264

People who work in food service or customer service: What’s the dumbest thing a customer ever insisted was “the law” or “illegal”? (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 1 year ago by morganth@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Brought to you by my discovery that some people think that “the customer is always right” isn’t the slogan of a long-dead department store, but rather it’s an actual call the cops law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, since people can just wire you money. Then, if you return it, they can attempt to use that transaction to prove dirty money is clean. If it is clean in the first place, they should be able to provide documentation.

[–] Galluf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn't obfuscate anything. If it's not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I'm not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK, well I disagree that it ‘doesn’t obfuscate anything’. Additional transactions are in a launder’s interest.

But also consider that If unknown monies can just be returned, then a launderer can keep trying, with multiple institutions in multiple ways, until they are successful in investing it.

[–] Galluf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Then you shouldn't let the transaction occur in the first place.

Sure, that sounds like it's best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.