On another note, how do we know that the dresses aren’t secret weapons? Has nobody in government read Medea?

After all, we’ve all heard the term “Fashionista”!

There weapons are wicked A-line skirts, the withering smirk and the cutting remark.

So long as you’re fairly prompt supplying the information they tend to release them quickly enough.

If you’d like to see if you (or someone sharing a close enough name) is on the list you can do so at:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/financial_services/sanctions/fin_sanctions_index.cfm

or

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/

And how satisfactory is a situation where interception and seizure of money transfers between two parties “happen all the time”?

Of course, my own answers to these question tend to be “nothing at all” and “not very”, respectively.

So those of us who use IBAN, do we still get monitored?

This is making me all kinds of nervous.

@SPAZZM: Yeah, IBAN is a designator rather than a settlement system – most payments through SWIFT will use BIC/IBAN so if you make a payment in the UK or using US$ you will be monitored for compliance. Unsure about the specifics for other nations, but the EU has something similar in place.

Which means international transactions will now take place in Euros. Does the government -want- to make the dollar no longer a reserve currency?

The whole foriegn exchange system is based on correspondent banks and nostro/vostro accounts so its an issue whatever currency you use, its just that the US is so much more strict.

Well, in this case it’s been four months now. And, as it’s asked in the article: What if the order had been for $20,500 and not $205? The victim’s shop might have been closed, then. And still, the US government’s ability and will to interfere arbitrarily like that simply defies every notion I ever had of “free trade” – and all this just to fight off “terrorism”, harassing peaceful business people who in 99,9999% of the cases will have nothing whatsoever to do with “terrorism”?

I mean, it just seems like, completely unacceptable – and the fact that it happens all the time serves to make things worse, not better, IMO. To be fair, government surveillance of nickel-and-dime money transfers like $205 between small businesses is simply over the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolland

One of the Danish newspapers today carry a story that some Danish businesses are taking steps to avoid SWIFT to avoid the risk of having their money frozen with the risk og possible damage to themselves and third parties.

Like someone said, it would appear the US govt (and SWIFT) are working hard to make themselves irrelevant.

The correspondent bank would (should) have asked the remitter for more information on the beneficiary – it is more than likely that the remitting bank didn’t pass that request on, and so it was only when the customer noticed that the bank investigated and sorted out.

Also, don’t get me wrong, I in no way agree with the system, you should see how easy it is to get false-positives (especially when dealing with islamic/arabic sounding names – some of the people on the SDN list have 30-40 aliases) I’m just trying to provide a little explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolland

Yes, that’s where Christa’s shop is :-)

… in the city of Maribo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maribo

rather provincial, 6000 inhabitants, hardly a terrorist stronghold :-)

Otherwise I hope he bumps into someone who inconveniences him with a rubber glove and a cavity search.

(Don’t worry – just relax while being searched and keep doing the right thing, and you’ll be OK.)

==
@#12 Agree.
Don’t underestimate the number of false positives and just plain errors. Clerical errors, malicious errors, stupid errors, whatever.