Is the 5000 yuan cross-border remittance identity check a way to 'protect the wallet' or 'overreach'?

Recently, the financial circle has been buzzing about the 'strictest foreign exchange regulations ever', and I, Brother B, must say a few words!

The People's Bank of China, the Financial Regulatory Bureau, and the Securities Regulatory Commission have jointly released a big move, the 'Measures for the Management of Customer Due Diligence by Financial Institutions' (draft for comments), directly bringing the 'security checkpoint' of cross-border remittance to the forefront: from now on, for a single remittance of 5000 yuan or more, or foreign currency equivalent to over 1000 US dollars, the identity of the remitter must be verified! Even payment institutions selling prepaid cards above 10,000 yuan must register.

At first glance, this seems like 'protecting the wallet': anti-money laundering, preventing illegal outflow of funds, blocking financial risks, and ensuring that ordinary people's legitimate assets are safer. But controversy has also erupted; some people applaud and believe that 'strict management can plug loopholes'; others are complaining that 'if 5000 yuan needs to be checked, won't normal cross-border consumption and sending money to overseas family members be 'choked'?

Financial institutions are going to be extremely busy! Previously, they might have casually gone through the processes, but now they have to 'fully transmit information, actively identify loopholes, and set rules according to risk', which is equivalent to giving each cross-border money flow a 'dual buff' of 'AI detective + manual review'. Ordinary people will likely face more stringent and frequent audits for future overseas remittances; wanting to send living expenses to children studying abroad or transfer some money to overseas accounts might require 'proving you are you' and 'explaining how the money is spent', which significantly increases the hassle factor!

What’s even more absurd is the scope of influence—whether wanting to buy property overseas, allocate assets, immigrate, or educate children, as long as it involves cross-border funds, it will all be 'monitored'. Some people criticize 'overreach, restricting ordinary people's freedom', while others praise 'it should have been this strict to combat money laundering and maintain financial security'.

So, is this new regulation a 'necessary iron fist to guard the financial defenses', or a 'rope that ties up normal cross-border needs'? Brother B feels that getting stablecoins going domestically is already difficult.