5 ms·

This is basically money laundering, right?

by rkowalick 9y ago

wcummings 9y ago
It's only money laundering if the source of coins is illicit. You can legally tumble clean coins all day long.
ryanlol 9y ago
Certainly.
MichaelGG 9y ago
It's privacy. Money laundering is a fake crime and propaganda by governments with prosecutors unable to find real crime. It's as bad as calling copyright infringement "theft" or even "piracy", though the later term has been pretty watered down. Or how banks push the idea of "Identity theft" as if someone stole your identity versus the bank failing to verify your identity. We don't call encryption "information laundering" and niether should simple financial privacy have any negative term.
- home_boi 9y ago
  From the utilitarian perspective, what is the point of financial privacy (from the government)? It looks like money laundering and purchases of illegal substances seem to be the biggest "benefits". Those are benefits that aren't beneficial to the government or the people that are governed.
  - smichel17 9y ago
    Spending habits can reveal a ton of information about a person. At that point, financial privacy has the same justification as encrypted communication or any other kind of privacy: protecting people from Government overreach. Knowledge is power.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  >Money laundering is a fake crime and propaganda by governments with prosecutors unable to find real crime. Absolutely true. I'm a convicted money launderer because I once used a chinese bitcoin exchange instead of an European one. The wires from the Chinese exchange were nothing compared to the EU ones, simply the origin country was enough to justify my conviction.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    Conviction in the US?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      The Nordics.
  - ramchip 9y ago
    But why? Was it dirty money somehow?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      Nah, I was charged with other crimes (none of which had a financial incentive, according to LE or the courts). While at it they "subpoenad" my bank account history, saw a bunch of wires from normal European exchanges and then one wire from a Chinese account. Never cared to ask about the European ones (I verified that they didn't ask the exchanges directly either.), but the Chinese one was apparently particularly interesting. They asked me a few questions, I explained the (legal) source of the money, few years later the thing actually got to court and I was found guilty with the only evidence against me being the country where the funds came from. Not worth it to appeal, I might get my 6-7k euros back but would probably end up paying more than that for lawyers.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Can you give more information about the crimes you were charged with?
- dboreham 9y ago
  The real crime is tax evasion.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    If I collect money for my illegal pharmacy, then launder it through some retail front, am I not paying all taxes at that point?
    - eropple 9y ago
      ...No? You haven't paid taxes on the first transaction at all.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        There wouldn't be a second transaction (the front store) if it weren't for trying to pay taxes on the first. So that's not really a defensible line of reasoning. Only, perhaps, if the tax rates would differ.
        eropple 9y ago
        It doesn't matter why they exist: they are different transactions and taxes are assessed separately.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        Sure, so if you want to use circular logic to say the real crime of money laundering is tax evasion, when money laundering actually results in more taxes being paid, that's fine. But don't expect that to be a persuasive moral argument for making money laundering a crime.
        eropple 9y ago
        I didn't say the real crime of money laundering is tax evasion. The real crime of money laundering is obstruction of justice. But taxes are certainly being evaded, too.
- empath75 9y ago
  People go to prison for it all the time. It's as real as any other crime. If you are acting in a way that's indistinguishable from someone who is attempting to hide evidence of a crime, don't be surprised when people think you are doing something wrong.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    I mean it's a made up victimless crime that only serves prosecutors. It's on the moral level of asset seizure and worse than "crimes" like wire fraud. Prosecutors are free to think someone's doing something wrong. Investigators might be able to get warrants under such suspicions (iffy but perhaps acceptable). But they should need to find actual wrongdoing to be able to convict people, and this last part is what is lacking today.
    - konschubert 9y ago
      It is only money laundering if is done with money that is the result of a crime. Just like a trader is only a fence when he trades stolen good. Therefore, by definition, money laundering is assisting a crime. If the crime had a victim, then, by proxy, laundering the money of the crime is not victimless either.
      - jnbiche 9y ago
        This is absolutely not true, at least in the US. If you are a business that transmits even 100% lawful funds without registering with FINCEN and registration as a MSB in your jurisdiction, you can and will be charged with money laundering. Also, using your argument about money laundering, what about a restaurant that serves mostly mafioso, but never engages in any unlawful activity themselves. They are providing food to criminals, which is even more critical to their criminal enterprise. After all, the mafia can't commit crimes if they can't eat, right? And they are paid with funds that result from crimes. By your analogy, the restaurant owner is assisting in a crime. So should that restaurant owner be charged with some kind of new crime? (like money laundering is a relatively new crime that has been created over the past 50 years) Like, criminal gastronomy, feeding in the 3rd degree, or something?
- closeparen 9y ago
  This is pretty easy to reason about: the electorate benefits from information privacy more than it could benefit from thought police. The electorate would benefit less from total financial privacy than it does from the ability to enforce taxes and civil judgements.
  - rvern 9y ago
    > The electorate would benefit less from total financial privacy than it does from the ability to enforce taxes and civil judgements. I'm not so sure about that.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      One nice thing about rising inequality is that the proportion of people who are net beneficiaries of redistributive policies approaches 100%.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Under US law, no. Money laundering requires the intent to conceal the origin of proceeds from certain specific unlawful activities or to avoid financial reporting requirements. Hiding the origin of lawfully obtained money is legal.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  This is not true. There simply doesn't exist any court that'd accept your justification that your service is only intended to conceal the origin legitimately obtained funds.
- jnbiche 9y ago
  This is absolutely not true, at least in the US. If you are a business that transmits even 100% lawful funds without registering with FINCEN and registration as a MSB in your jurisdiction, you can and will be charged with money laundering.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    That would only be if you used the tumbler for the purpose of avoiding financial reporting requirements. Simply using a tumbler is not illegal. For instance, if someone used legally obtained money to buy bitcoin, put them through a tumbler, then used the bitcoin to buy drugs. That would not be money laundering because it does not hide the proceeds of a crime or avoid any financial reporting requirements. On the other hand, if the drug dealer took the bitcoin that they were paid with and put it through a tumbler, that would be money laundering because they would be hiding the origin of the proceeds from selling drugs.
    - jnbiche 9y ago
      > Simply using a tumbler is not illegal. Right, but operating a tumbler without FINCEN registration and a MSB license is illegal. Even if the money put through it is entirely legal.

This is basically money laundering, right?

wcummings 9y ago

It's only money laundering if the source of coins is illicit. You can legally tumble clean coins all day long.

ryanlol 9y ago

Certainly.

MichaelGG 9y ago

It's privacy. Money laundering is a fake crime and propaganda by governments with prosecutors unable to find real crime. It's as bad as calling copyright infringement "theft" or even "piracy", though the later term has been pretty watered down. Or how banks push the idea of "Identity theft" as if someone stole your identity versus the bank failing to verify your identity. We don't call encryption "information laundering" and niether should simple financial privacy have any negative term.

home_boi 9y ago
From the utilitarian perspective, what is the point of financial privacy (from the government)? It looks like money laundering and purchases of illegal substances seem to be the biggest "benefits". Those are benefits that aren't beneficial to the government or the people that are governed.
- smichel17 9y ago
  Spending habits can reveal a ton of information about a person. At that point, financial privacy has the same justification as encrypted communication or any other kind of privacy: protecting people from Government overreach. Knowledge is power.
ryanlol 9y ago
>Money laundering is a fake crime and propaganda by governments with prosecutors unable to find real crime. Absolutely true. I'm a convicted money launderer because I once used a chinese bitcoin exchange instead of an European one. The wires from the Chinese exchange were nothing compared to the EU ones, simply the origin country was enough to justify my conviction.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Conviction in the US?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    The Nordics.
- ramchip 9y ago
  But why? Was it dirty money somehow?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    Nah, I was charged with other crimes (none of which had a financial incentive, according to LE or the courts). While at it they "subpoenad" my bank account history, saw a bunch of wires from normal European exchanges and then one wire from a Chinese account. Never cared to ask about the European ones (I verified that they didn't ask the exchanges directly either.), but the Chinese one was apparently particularly interesting. They asked me a few questions, I explained the (legal) source of the money, few years later the thing actually got to court and I was found guilty with the only evidence against me being the country where the funds came from. Not worth it to appeal, I might get my 6-7k euros back but would probably end up paying more than that for lawyers.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Can you give more information about the crimes you were charged with?
dboreham 9y ago
The real crime is tax evasion.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  If I collect money for my illegal pharmacy, then launder it through some retail front, am I not paying all taxes at that point?
  - eropple 9y ago
    ...No? You haven't paid taxes on the first transaction at all.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      There wouldn't be a second transaction (the front store) if it weren't for trying to pay taxes on the first. So that's not really a defensible line of reasoning. Only, perhaps, if the tax rates would differ.
      - eropple 9y ago
        It doesn't matter why they exist: they are different transactions and taxes are assessed separately.
        MichaelGG 9y ago
        Sure, so if you want to use circular logic to say the real crime of money laundering is tax evasion, when money laundering actually results in more taxes being paid, that's fine. But don't expect that to be a persuasive moral argument for making money laundering a crime.
        eropple 9y ago
        I didn't say the real crime of money laundering is tax evasion. The real crime of money laundering is obstruction of justice. But taxes are certainly being evaded, too.
empath75 9y ago
People go to prison for it all the time. It's as real as any other crime. If you are acting in a way that's indistinguishable from someone who is attempting to hide evidence of a crime, don't be surprised when people think you are doing something wrong.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  I mean it's a made up victimless crime that only serves prosecutors. It's on the moral level of asset seizure and worse than "crimes" like wire fraud. Prosecutors are free to think someone's doing something wrong. Investigators might be able to get warrants under such suspicions (iffy but perhaps acceptable). But they should need to find actual wrongdoing to be able to convict people, and this last part is what is lacking today.
  - konschubert 9y ago
    It is only money laundering if is done with money that is the result of a crime. Just like a trader is only a fence when he trades stolen good. Therefore, by definition, money laundering is assisting a crime. If the crime had a victim, then, by proxy, laundering the money of the crime is not victimless either.
    - jnbiche 9y ago
      This is absolutely not true, at least in the US. If you are a business that transmits even 100% lawful funds without registering with FINCEN and registration as a MSB in your jurisdiction, you can and will be charged with money laundering. Also, using your argument about money laundering, what about a restaurant that serves mostly mafioso, but never engages in any unlawful activity themselves. They are providing food to criminals, which is even more critical to their criminal enterprise. After all, the mafia can't commit crimes if they can't eat, right? And they are paid with funds that result from crimes. By your analogy, the restaurant owner is assisting in a crime. So should that restaurant owner be charged with some kind of new crime? (like money laundering is a relatively new crime that has been created over the past 50 years) Like, criminal gastronomy, feeding in the 3rd degree, or something?
closeparen 9y ago
This is pretty easy to reason about: the electorate benefits from information privacy more than it could benefit from thought police. The electorate would benefit less from total financial privacy than it does from the ability to enforce taxes and civil judgements.
- rvern 9y ago
  > The electorate would benefit less from total financial privacy than it does from the ability to enforce taxes and civil judgements. I'm not so sure about that.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    One nice thing about rising inequality is that the proportion of people who are net beneficiaries of redistributive policies approaches 100%.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

Under US law, no. Money laundering requires the intent to conceal the origin of proceeds from certain specific unlawful activities or to avoid financial reporting requirements. Hiding the origin of lawfully obtained money is legal.

ryanlol 9y ago
This is not true. There simply doesn't exist any court that'd accept your justification that your service is only intended to conceal the origin legitimately obtained funds.
jnbiche 9y ago
This is absolutely not true, at least in the US. If you are a business that transmits even 100% lawful funds without registering with FINCEN and registration as a MSB in your jurisdiction, you can and will be charged with money laundering.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  That would only be if you used the tumbler for the purpose of avoiding financial reporting requirements. Simply using a tumbler is not illegal. For instance, if someone used legally obtained money to buy bitcoin, put them through a tumbler, then used the bitcoin to buy drugs. That would not be money laundering because it does not hide the proceeds of a crime or avoid any financial reporting requirements. On the other hand, if the drug dealer took the bitcoin that they were paid with and put it through a tumbler, that would be money laundering because they would be hiding the origin of the proceeds from selling drugs.
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    > Simply using a tumbler is not illegal. Right, but operating a tumbler without FINCEN registration and a MSB license is illegal. Even if the money put through it is entirely legal.