‘Exciting News’: Trump Brags About Gutting Anti-Money Laundering Law - Rolling Stone

In a controversial move that has raised eyebrows across the financial world, the Trump administration has announced that it will no longer enforce a Treasury Department rule requiring shell companies to reveal their owners and beneficiaries. This regulation, aimed at combating money laundering and financial fraud, is considered by many to be a crucial tool in the fight against illicit financial activity.

President Trump's decision to suspend enforcement of this rule has been met with a mix of criticism and praise, highlighting the deep divide in views on financial regulation and the role of government in business. While some laud it as a victory for business freedom and economic growth, others see it as a dangerous step backwards in the fight against financial crime.

This development opens a new chapter in the ongoing debate over the balance between business interests and regulatory oversight, a contentious issue that has long been a point of contention in American politics. The implications of this decision are far-reaching, with potential impacts not only on the domestic economy but also on America's relationships with other nations and its role in the global economy.

The Treasury Department rule that President Trump's administration has decided not to enforce was introduced under the Obama administration as a measure to combat money laundering and tax evasion. The regulation required that shell companies—businesses without active operations or significant assets—disclose their real owners and beneficiaries. This was a move aimed at shedding light on the often opaque world of shell companies, which can be used as conduits for illegal activities such as money laundering, tax evasion, and fraud.

Shell companies, while not illegal in themselves, have been implicated in numerous high-profile scandals around the world. Their shadowy nature and lack of transparency make them prime vehicles for hiding illicitly gained assets and for masking the identities of those involved in criminal activities. By forcing these entities to disclose their owners and beneficiaries, the Treasury Department rule sought to pierce the veil of secrecy that often shrouds these entities.

The decision by Trump’s administration to not enforce this rule has sparked considerable controversy and criticism. Proponents of the rule argue that its enforcement is crucial in the fight against financial crime, while critics of the decision warn that this could further enable money laundering and other illicit activities.

The Trump administration, however, argues that the rule was overly burdensome for businesses and stifled economic growth. They assert that the regulation was a part of a broader trend of over-regulation under the previous administration, and that rolling it back is part of their commitment to making America more business-friendly.

The Treasury Department rule, which Trump’s administration has decided not to enforce, was designed to prevent money laundering by increasing transparency. Enacted under the Obama administration, the rule required shell companies to disclose their beneficial owners and beneficiaries. This was intended to make it more difficult for criminals to use such companies to launder money, evade taxes, and commit other financial crimes.

However, critics of the rule argued that it imposed an unnecessary burden on businesses. They contended that the rule was overly complex and costly to comply with, and that it did more harm than good by discouraging investment. This viewpoint was shared by many in the Trump administration, leading to their decision to not enforce the rule.

Nonetheless, supporters of the rule maintain that its benefits outweigh its costs. They point to the crucial role that transparency plays in combating financial crime, and assert that the rule was an important tool in this effort. Moreover, they argue that the decision to not enforce the rule sends a dangerous signal to criminals that the U.S. is softening its stance on money laundering.

Whether the benefits of the rule truly outweighed its costs is a matter of ongoing debate. However, what is clear is that the Trump administration's decision to not enforce it marks a significant shift in U.S. policy towards financial crime.

Some experts believe that this decision could potentially enable illicit activities. According to Dr. Harold Brown, a professor of economics at Stanford University, "This move to not enforce the rule requiring shell companies to disclose their owners could potentially open up avenues for money laundering and other financial crimes. It's a dangerous precedent to set."

Dr. Brown's concerns are echoed by numerous other financial experts and anti-corruption advocates. They argue that shell companies, which are often used for legitimate business purposes, can also be exploited by criminals to hide their wealth and avoid detection. By not requiring these companies to disclose their owners, it becomes much easier for these illicit activities to go unnoticed.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that this decision could potentially spur economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens on businesses. They argue that the previous rule was overly onerous and stifled innovation and growth among small and medium-sized businesses.

In conclusion, the Trump administration's decision to not enforce a Treasury Department rule that mandates shell companies to disclose their owners and beneficiaries has been met with mixed reactions. On one hand, it has been celebrated as a triumph against over-regulation by proponents, who argue that it fosters a more business-friendly environment. On the other hand, critics see it as a potential loophole that could enable money laundering and other illicit financial activities.

Trump's explicit bragging about this controversial move on social media was met with both applause and condemnation, underscoring the divisive nature of his presidency. The long-term ramifications of this decision, however, remain to be seen. As the nation continues to grapple with these economic and ethical dilemmas, the debate over the balance between regulatory oversight and business freedom continues.

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-treasury-gutting-anti-money-laundering-law-1235286134/