3 ms·

> "Money laundering" is essentially the crime of "helping a criminal conceal their crime" I think what concerns me about defining a crime so generally as somet

by z3c0 5y ago

> "Money laundering" is essentially the crime of "helping a criminal conceal their crime" I think what concerns me about defining a crime so generally as something you only do after committing another crime would be the presumption that the state was infallible when defining all other crimes. So it equally improves a states ability to enforce both legitimate and illegitimate laws, but does little to address the crimes that led to ill-gained capital in the first place. Having known some criminals, their solution to money-laundering laws was simply not to file their taxes. It didn't stop them from committing crimes, so the "deterrence" angle seems as flimsy as ever here.

onion2k 5y ago
It didn't stop them from committing crimes, so the "deterrence" angle seems as flimsy as ever It would be unreasonable to expect a deterrent to stop everyone - some people are arrogant/stupid enough to believe they might get away with their crimes, and some are actually clever enough to do so. The point is that it deters all the people who might be tempted but aren't (rightly or wrongly) sure they'd pull it off. I don't imagine there's a way to measure how many people that is, but if it's "some" then the deterrent has worked. Also, specifically in the case of money laundering, the laws aren't vague catch-all things that try to cover every base. They're very specific about what reporting you need to do when you carry out financial transactions. If you're doing those transactions you have to complete certain reporting criteria, and if you fail to that properly you committed the crime. There's no need to assume the state was infallible and had to define every crime. They don't. They just needed to define every type of financial transaction, and what questions to ask when those transactions happen (they're things like "Ask the person where the money came from." and "Please attach confirmation, in the form of a bank statement, that this is really where the money came from."), and that's quite easy.

by z3c0 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

It didn't stop them from committing crimes, so the "deterrence" angle seems as flimsy as ever It would be unreasonable to expect a deterrent to stop everyone - some people are arrogant/stupid enough to believe they might get away with their crimes, and some are actually clever enough to do so. The point is that it deters all the people who might be tempted but aren't (rightly or wrongly) sure they'd pull it off. I don't imagine there's a way to measure how many people that is, but if it's "some" then the deterrent has worked. Also, specifically in the case of money laundering, the laws aren't vague catch-all things that try to cover every base. They're very specific about what reporting you need to do when you carry out financial transactions. If you're doing those transactions you have to complete certain reporting criteria, and if you fail to that properly you committed the crime. There's no need to assume the state was infallible and had to define every crime. They don't. They just needed to define every type of financial transaction, and what questions to ask when those transactions happen (they're things like "Ask the person where the money came from." and "Please attach confirmation, in the form of a bank statement, that this is really where the money came from."), and that's quite easy.