5 ms·
Money laundering is not always linked to criminal activity except in so far as money laundering it itself illegal. Many nations (and not just "third world" nat
by rmah 5y ago
Money laundering is not always linked to criminal activity except in so far as money laundering it itself illegal. Many nations (and not just "third world" nations) have some pretty onerous restrictions of flow of capital. A lot of money laundering activity is simply people moving money between jurisdictions. Admittedly, sometimes (usually?) with illegal goals such as tax evasion, but not always.
- seanhunter 5y agoMoney laundering is linked to criminal activity by definition. It literally means introducing the proceeds of criminal activity into the legitimate financial system. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneylaundering.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneylaundering.asp
- wpietri 5y agoI think that's a good general definition. But sometimes people want to move capital unlinked to crime across borders. They then use exactly the same mechanisms money launderers use. If you have a term for that you like better, I'd be interested to hear it.
- seanhunter 5y agoIf it's not the proceeds of crime, but just money leaving because of unfavourable domestic policies, it's normally called "capital flight" rather than money laundering.
- irtigor 5y agoThat's only true if they are trying to avoid taxation, which is also ilegal (even if you think it is justified). Moving capital from a place to another doesn't use the same mechanisms of money laundering if done legally.
- wpietri 5y agoThat's not the case. As mentioned elsewhere in thread, some places have limits on capital movement.
- irtigor 5y agoThat's a good example that proves my point and the reason why I said "even if think it is justified", it doesn't matter if it is a cap/tax/whatever, it only uses the same mechanisms of money laundering because it is money laundering (they are trying to hide that that money is not clean/legal, that the reason it is illegal is because it was not supossed to legally leave the origin country instead of being drug money, makes no difference to the law, but morally could be ok to some).
- malka 5y agoThen moving the capital is not legal.
- wpietri 5y agoSure, but they are not trying to avoid taxation, which is the claim I was addressing.
- vmception 5y agoObfuscation. One of my other comments might be useful for you in articulating this in the future: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27317593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27317593
- wpietri 5y agoJust so people downvoting this have an example, India has strong restrictions on capital movement. So much so that once when I was leaving India the outgoing customs inspector had me open my wallet, noticed excess rupees, and helpfully relieved me of some of them before I got on the plane. And less colorfully, I know somebody whose parents would like to move to the US to spend more time with their kids, but they can't legally transfer enough money to buy a house near those kids. I honestly get why some countries have capital controls; rapid shifts in capital can be truly devastating to a small economy. And criminals are some of the people most eager to move large sums of money to other legal jurisdictions. But there are definitely cases where money laundering isn't linked to what most people would consider crime.
- swader999 5y agoCyprus' capital controls around 2013 was a catalyst that brought bitcoin into the broader discourse and pushed it to 1k shortly after.