seems yet again you think its "about franky so ignore it"
no.. dont point fingers at me for actually doing the research which you lot are incapable of,.
You mean like the
research I did 3 pages ago which thoroughly debunked this nonsense you keep repeating but you have simply chosen to ignore?
Since you seem to be so keen on what the FATF have to say about bitcoin, here are some more great quotes from them you might be interested in (but will probably also ignore):
The FATF defines peer-to-peer’ (P2P) transactions as VA transfers conducted without the use or involvement of a VASP or other obliged entity (e.g., VA transfers between two unhosted wallets whose users are acting on their own behalf).
The FATF recognises that P2P transactions could pose specific ML/TF risks, as they can potentially be used to avoid AML/CFT controls in the FATF Standards.
Therefore, ML/TF risks related to P2P transactions should be monitored in an ongoing and forward-looking manner.
So, any transaction which does not involve a centralized exchange "should be monitored".
And from the same document, under the headings "Risk factors":
Transactions from / to non-obliged entities (e.g., unhosted wallets with no obliged entity)
So, any transaction to or from your own personal wallet constitutes a "risk".
So go ahead and bleat on about how mixers are high risk according to the FATF, while conveniently ignoring that fact that the FATF say that
any transaction which is not part of a KYCed account on a centralized exchange reporting directly to your government is equally high risk.