Being convicted of violating anti-money laundering laws is not proof that they engaged in money laundering. Like I explained, to prove money laundering occurred

Being convicted of violating anti-money laundering laws is not proof that they engaged in money laundering. Like I explained, to prove money laundering occurred, you have to prove that money was generated in a criminal enterprise, which would require the party who provided the funds to be convicted in a court of law of some crime that generated the income. In the vast majority of cases where a financial intermediary is convicted of violating an anti-money laundering law, this doesn't happen. It would make discussions more constructive if you read the comment in full before responding to it.