3 ms·
According the filing (linked elsewhere in this thread) she knowingly took funds (from an undercover agent) that she believed to be from drug sales... e.g. she
by iaw 8y ago
According the filing (linked elsewhere in this thread) she knowingly took funds (from an undercover agent) that she believed to be from drug sales... e.g. she intentionally provided a money laundering service.
- Scoundreller 8y agoBut was still charged with more generic offences that have nothing to do with drugs.
- empath75 8y agoThat’s what those generic offenses are designed for. There’s nothing morally wrong with moving money around for people without validating their identity. But if you make it illegal than almost everyone doing it will be doing it to launder money or evade taxes, so if you catch someone at that, it’s almost certain that they have either committed another crime or have assisted someone else at committing a crime. The alternative to having financial crimes like that is that it becomes impossible to convict the upper levels of crime organizations of anything, and you just end up arresting low level people for crimes where you have immediate physical evidence.
- cheriot 8y agoWouldn't they still be guilty of tax fraud? Making more actions/people criminal just to catch the people that should be criminal more easily doesn't sit well.
- nradov 8y agoIt wouldn't necessarily be tax fraud. Criminals are free to declare their income from illegal activities and pay taxes on it. https://amp.cnn.com/money/2013/02/28/news/economy/illegal-income-tax/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/money/2013/02/28/news/economy/illegal-in...
- cheriot 8y agoThat's awesome, thanks. Since declaring it means you're no longer trying to avoid be caught for the underlying crime I don't think it adds to the point I'm skeptical of.
- solotronics 8y agoso if you don't know the source of the funds are you still breaking the law?