Money laundering is absolutely rampant. When criminal organizations are able to sell billions of dollars worth of highly restricted schedule I drugs in the US,

Money laundering is absolutely rampant. When criminal organizations are able to sell billions of dollars worth of highly restricted schedule I drugs in the US, it stands to reason that laundering the proceeds of those sales is a cake walk in comparison. And we know they successfully launder a significant fraction of those billions of dollars worth of criminal proceeds, as otherwise their criminal enterprises wouldn't be sustainable the way they are. So AML laws result in massive amounts of privacy violation (far more than what TSA rules, which only apply when one boards a plane, impose), in requiring the reporting of a significant fraction of private financial interactions to law enforcement surveillance agencies. And despite this massive sacrifice in government accountability and privacy, these laws are widely circumvented, to the tune of billions of dollars worth of criminal proceeds being laundered each year. The reason why AML laws are dangerous is that the state itself is a threat vector, and these laws massively increase the power of the state relative to the private citizen. Policy needs to be crafted to minimize all risks, not just those that emanate from malicious non-state actors, like criminals. The risk of tyranny, or structural repression, needs to be addressed too. Given there are numerous other investigative tools available to law enforcement to stop crime besides warrantless surveillance, I see no justification for such a dangerous law, with such limited evidence of effectiveness, being in place.