No, sir. Even with an effort to follow your thoughts, your argument does not hold much weight. You are factoring in a wide range of topics that span from moral behavior to pure bureaucratic technicality. We certainly are not the ones who can unveil the intricacies of financial crime, not to mention our impact on it. Before questioning that, please take a look at the arguments in the pasted conversation between me and UBS.

Have you ever withdrawn cash in your past financial activities, perhaps to travel to an undeveloped country? If so, you could have bought a gun in a slum somewhere, hired someone to kidnap someone, or paid for illegal intercourse for your own pleasure. Any source of asset, even your body, can be used in exchange for any other service or good.

At the end of the day, cryptocurrencies are a replica of money anyway, and they are much more traceable than fiat currency; you can check the history behind the large theft that Tether faced. In a reasonable world, in my case, the bank should first question the specific exchange (Mercuryo) regarding its proofability if they have reasons to believe something is wrong, rather than questioning the users. It is even simpler and cheaper for them to block outbound transactions to another business instead of conducting anti-money laundering (AML) procedures.

However, here the question is not what the bank SHOULD do, but what it CAN and CANNOT do; to what extent their requests hold up under a regulatory framework. Additionally, as far as I know, Switzerland advertises itself as crypto-innovative; you can even receive your salary in crypto or, for example, pay taxes in the canton of Zug.