3 ms·

The point is that money laundering is already illegal, everyone who's doing it is already breaking the law. The only purpose this serves is to create a new law

by adrusi 11y ago

The point is that money laundering is already illegal, everyone who's doing it is already breaking the law. The only purpose this serves is to create a new law that is easier to prove violation of. A law that makes it easier to indict criminals at the expense of making legitimate acts illegal is fundamentally at odds with the physical underpinnings that give us the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.

Someone1234 11y ago
> The point is that money laundering is already illegal, everyone who's doing it is already breaking the law. No. Knowingly laundering money is illegal, being used to launder money unknowingly is not. For example if a money launderer buys your property with cash (car, house, painting) and then goes ahead and resells that property later to clean money, by your logic the seller would also be laundering, which is obviously absurd. With this law the seller has the responsibility not to accept cash over a certain amount, which makes the launderer's life more difficult. Most people who take part in money laundering do so unknowingly. The law provides a better paper trail to detect laundering. > A law that makes it easier to indict criminals at the expense of making legitimate acts illegal is fundamentally at odds with the physical underpinnings that give us the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. That's circular logic. You claim something is a "legitimate act" but all illegal things were at one time legitimate acts: drinking & driving, guns on aircraft, drug usage, all computing crime, all financial crime, etc. You can use that exact sentence and the logic held within to argue that all new laws of any nature violate "innocent until proven guilty" because inherently before the law was passed these were "legitimate acts."

3 ms·

The point is that money laundering is already illegal, everyone who's doing it is already breaking the law. The only purpose this serves is to create a new law

by adrusi 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago
> The point is that money laundering is already illegal, everyone who's doing it is already breaking the law. No. Knowingly laundering money is illegal, being used to launder money unknowingly is not. For example if a money launderer buys your property with cash (car, house, painting) and then goes ahead and resells that property later to clean money, by your logic the seller would also be laundering, which is obviously absurd. With this law the seller has the responsibility not to accept cash over a certain amount, which makes the launderer's life more difficult. Most people who take part in money laundering do so unknowingly. The law provides a better paper trail to detect laundering. > A law that makes it easier to indict criminals at the expense of making legitimate acts illegal is fundamentally at odds with the physical underpinnings that give us the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. That's circular logic. You claim something is a "legitimate act" but all illegal things were at one time legitimate acts: drinking & driving, guns on aircraft, drug usage, all computing crime, all financial crime, etc. You can use that exact sentence and the logic held within to argue that all new laws of any nature violate "innocent until proven guilty" because inherently before the law was passed these were "legitimate acts."