I don’t work for :R:, so if you want to talk to their Revolut for Business/business development team, best talk to @andriusb or use other channels.
Yes and no.
Liability attribution for corporations can be left wanting in many circumstances.
For example, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) is not fit for purpose, because the threshold for a successful conviction is too high (In terms of tracing the chain of causation through the organisational structure.), and the criminal conviction will not be corporeal but against a legal person.
This is a false argument.
Cryptocurrencies, whether designated as virtual assets, non-securities or whatever, is a store of value. Therefore it can be use for the purposes of money transmission. Money transmission that circumvents KYC/AML policy will put the integrity of the global financial markets at risk.
In addition, KYC/AML regimes are preventative schemes, whereby they try to prevent situations from arising in the first place. If illicit funds enter the global financial system, and mixed in it, by the time the perpetrators have been found, and tried in court, it would have been far too late.