> Just because someone [does something mechanically identical to money laundering] it isn’t money laundering. I'm not actually sure this is the case under the

> Just because someone [does something mechanically identical to money laundering] it isn’t money laundering. I'm not actually sure this is the case under the law. Removing the technology from the mix, one of the better-known AML laws is that you can't structure your transactions for the purpose of avoiding the $10,000 transaction threshold (at which point the banks report the transaction to the feds for them to keep track of it). Note that -- as it is commonly stated, anyway, I haven't read the statute in question -- it doesn't matter why you are structuring your transactions to avoid the threshold, just doing it gets you in trouble.