To accuse someone of laundering money, you have to first prove that the funds that were obfuscated through the service were proceeds of crime. That in turn requ

To accuse someone of laundering money, you have to first prove that the funds that were obfuscated through the service were proceeds of crime. That in turn requires a criminal conviction where someone was convicted of a crime that generated the revenue being obfuscated, on the basis that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Without a conviction, there can be no presumption of a crime, and the moneys being sent to the service by the fund's originator cannot be accurately characterized as criminal in origin. In other words, all of these "so-and-so bank was convicted of laundering $3 billion" stories are presuming allegations of money laundering are true, when no court has ruled on the funds going through the bank being proceeds of a crime. In this case, the prosecutors are implying the entire sum of funds that went through the service was criminal in origin. In truth, these were funds obfuscated with no telling what portion were entirely legal in origin, and what portion were proceeds of crime. To presume all obfuscated funds were criminal in origin is a gross mischaracterization of reality to effectively vilify and criminalize financial privacy, and it's outrageous that justice department officers are responsible for it. The media is totally failing in maintaining independence from the state, in uncritically regurgitating its assertions.