It is honestly maddeningly easy to solve this problem, but right now the banks don't give a shit. The solution is for the large corporations to band together and form a "Better Banking Network" (BBN) or some such and force the banks to do the following, otherwise just create their own banks, god knows they have enough capital to do it. I would move my banking. Alternatively laws could be passed, but the bankers own too many politicians.
1. The final receiving bank accepts liability for fraudulent transactions. This bank in crapistan would be liable for the $40M. The personal finances of the executive level employees and board of directors are also part of this liability for extra motivation as they are likely complicit or at least complacent in the crime. Questionable banks/countries or new banks have restricted electronic transfers and would be required to put up a bond equal to their weekly electronic transfer allowance in case they decide to break the rule they forfeit the bond. Banks that refuse to sign up are blocked from transfering money to or from the BBN.
2. Banks will only transfer money to other BBN trusted banks who accept liability, and to that end put in due diligence to verify the identity of their customers with bio-metrics, photos, IDs etc. and put a 5 day hold on suspicious transactions and until the originator can be contacted to verify the transaction (but a 5 day minimum).
3. Restrict electronic transfers over $5000 such that they can be further transferred, but you can't walk in with a checking account that is 10 days old and ask to cash out the $40M that was just transferred in. You have to build up a history of transactions over a number of years that match the requested financial behavior. If you pull $40M out each month in sacks of cash, chances are you are a criminal enterprise to begin with, unless you are moving $500M plus a month through that account. Even then, legit businesses rarely pull out that kind of cash at one time at one bank location, there is just too much liability.
4. All banks should be able to freeze or reverse electronic transfers back to their origin with a valid order from the originating bank that fraud was involved. By keeping the funds electronic, the thieves can not get the cash out at all, and moving it around does not solve the problem, as tracking 40 transfers is easy if all the banks are relieved of liability by showing the forwarded bank and the destination bank still has the $40M because that new account holder couldn't pull anything out because he couldn't provide a legit identity for the bank to record: fingerprints, clear digital photo matched to drivers license/ID card etc. and/or his account had a history of $600 balance until the EFT today for $40M...
5. Swiss banks and other criminal enabling banks would go belly up or go legit because they would be cut off from the rest of the banking world, so they may offer anonymous banking, but you cant transfer your money in or out from any other financial institution or location.
The entire point of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin is that you can conceal the path of that electronic currency. It should be virtually impossible to conceal or obscure bank money transfers from a technical standpoint. The key to a good theft is to get away with the cash. If you cant get away with the cash, you will stop. The reasons banks got harder and harder to rob was the bank was on the hook for stolen cash. These days the EFT scams push the money through "legit" means to a fraudulent bank in some hell hole with no extradition or law enforcement and neither bank is liable. If they were on the hook: problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
It is honestly maddeningly easy to solve this problem, but right now the banks don't give a shit. The solution is for the large corporations to band together and form a "Better Banking Network" (BBN) or some such and force the banks to do the following, otherwise just create their own banks, god knows they have enough capital to do it. I would move my banking. Alternatively laws could be passed, but the bankers own too many politicians.
1. The final receiving bank accepts liability for fraudulent transactions. This bank in crapistan would be liable for the $40M. The personal finances of the executive level employees and board of directors are also part of this liability for extra motivation as they are likely complicit or at least complacent in the crime. Questionable banks/countries or new banks have restricted electronic transfers and would be required to put up a bond equal to their weekly electronic transfer allowance in case they decide to break the rule they forfeit the bond. Banks that refuse to sign up are blocked from transfering money to or from the BBN.
2. Banks will only transfer money to other BBN trusted banks who accept liability, and to that end put in due diligence to verify the identity of their customers with bio-metrics, photos, IDs etc. and put a 5 day hold on suspicious transactions and until the originator can be contacted to verify the transaction (but a 5 day minimum).
3. Restrict electronic transfers over $5000 such that they can be further transferred, but you can't walk in with a checking account that is 10 days old and ask to cash out the $40M that was just transferred in. You have to build up a history of transactions over a number of years that match the requested financial behavior. If you pull $40M out each month in sacks of cash, chances are you are a criminal enterprise to begin with, unless you are moving $500M plus a month through that account. Even then, legit businesses rarely pull out that kind of cash at one time at one bank location, there is just too much liability.
4. All banks should be able to freeze or reverse electronic transfers back to their origin with a valid order from the originating bank that fraud was involved. By keeping the funds electronic, the thieves can not get the cash out at all, and moving it around does not solve the problem, as tracking 40 transfers is easy if all the banks are relieved of liability by showing the forwarded bank and the destination bank still has the $40M because that new account holder couldn't pull anything out because he couldn't provide a legit identity for the bank to record: fingerprints, clear digital photo matched to drivers license/ID card etc. and/or his account had a history of $600 balance until the EFT today for $40M...
5. Swiss banks and other criminal enabling banks would go belly up or go legit because they would be cut off from the rest of the banking world, so they may offer anonymous banking, but you cant transfer your money in or out from any other financial institution or location.
The entire point of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin is that you can conceal the path of that electronic currency. It should be virtually impossible to conceal or obscure bank money transfers from a technical standpoint. The key to a good theft is to get away with the cash. If you cant get away with the cash, you will stop. The reasons banks got harder and harder to rob was the bank was on the hook for stolen cash. These days the EFT scams push the money through "legit" means to a fraudulent bank in some hell hole with no extradition or law enforcement and neither bank is liable. If they were on the hook: problem solved.