In the U.S. this is a no go for criminal investigation, as there is no way law enforcement to compel you to offer up that proof that isn't able to fall under 5th Amendment protections, whereas Third Party Doctrine actually gave them a way to get at the tramsaction chain through the service provider. Now, unless you want to run into some creative reinterpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments a la the definitional butchering that is generally applied to the 2nd you can't push that question onto someone who is the subject of credible allegations of money laundering
Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a pointedly not implenented feature. This has been one of them, because it is the difference between essentially making financial crime tractable to investigate vs. not.
I'm not taking a side, just trying to make more obvious some of the more subtle nuance most people won't articulate for you, as it tends to be part of "the quiet part". You must employ 2nd and higher order thinking to the U.S. and international regulatory state.
Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a pointedly not implenented feature. This has been one of them, because it is the difference between essentially making financial crime tractable to investigate vs. not.
I'm not taking a side, just trying to make more obvious some of the more subtle nuance most people won't articulate for you, as it tends to be part of "the quiet part". You must employ 2nd and higher order thinking to the U.S. and international regulatory state.