4 ms·

I never quite understood the bugabear about money laundering in the abstract. If there's fundamentally a criminal or security problem, it seems like that shoul

by hakfoo 3y ago

I never quite understood the bugabear about money laundering in the abstract. If there's fundamentally a criminal or security problem, it seems like that should be the core thing that law enforcement should be chasing. Disguising the source of funds, while arguably distasteful, shouldn't be the issue as long as appropriate taxes are paid. It's amusing that the IRS has explicit "declare your illegal income and we are not allowed to turn you over for doing so" mandates. My guess is that it provides a simpler case for prosecution. So to speak, they'd rather go after Al Capone for tax evasion. Rather than having to build a case on the "base" crime-- "prove he sold specific drugs at a specific time" or "prove he was involved in a specific deal with $sanctioned_country" -- they can move to "prove that this neighbourhood Subway franchise isn't turning over $75 million a year", which can largely be proven with a couple people sitting over Excel, rather than on-the-ground investigations and witnesses.

jackpeterfletch 3y ago
In reality though, you wouldn’t ‘launder’ money that wasn’t ‘dirty’. As an activity it’s basically always indicative of a crime. (Wether you agree with the law or not) And by its very purpose, it makes the ‘base’ crime harder to prosecute and trace. I think you’ve flipped the causality. So I don’t think it’s so much that prosecutors just think it’s easier way forward, and if they put their mind to it they could prosecute the base crime, but don’t want to. As much as the laundering activity itself has made it too hard to prosecute.
- sowbug 3y ago
  And VPNs are only for downloading child porn.
- hakfoo 3y ago
  I could imagine businesses in stealth phases trying to intentionally obfuscate their externally visible finances to keep a low profile. "Hey, $big_client, can you pay us through a chain of sham companies so it looks like you're buying office chairs from Crazy Teddy's Furniture and Waffles, so we can make a big splash when we announce our partnership at the launch event?" seems like something not that far out of line. Legitimate firms might want to blur their supply chains and vendor relationships. If a manufacturer of some small component discovers the end buyer is Apple, for example, it might increase the temptation for "ghost shifts" and supplying extra components into the knockoff-product and aftermarket repair ecosystems.

by hakfoo 3y ago

jackpeterfletch 3y ago

In reality though, you wouldn’t ‘launder’ money that wasn’t ‘dirty’. As an activity it’s basically always indicative of a crime. (Wether you agree with the law or not) And by its very purpose, it makes the ‘base’ crime harder to prosecute and trace. I think you’ve flipped the causality. So I don’t think it’s so much that prosecutors just think it’s easier way forward, and if they put their mind to it they could prosecute the base crime, but don’t want to. As much as the laundering activity itself has made it too hard to prosecute.

sowbug 3y ago
And VPNs are only for downloading child porn.
hakfoo 3y ago
I could imagine businesses in stealth phases trying to intentionally obfuscate their externally visible finances to keep a low profile. "Hey, $big_client, can you pay us through a chain of sham companies so it looks like you're buying office chairs from Crazy Teddy's Furniture and Waffles, so we can make a big splash when we announce our partnership at the launch event?" seems like something not that far out of line. Legitimate firms might want to blur their supply chains and vendor relationships. If a manufacturer of some small component discovers the end buyer is Apple, for example, it might increase the temptation for "ghost shifts" and supplying extra components into the knockoff-product and aftermarket repair ecosystems.