6 ms·

You could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured causes (for example, anti-war protesters

You could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured causes (for example, anti-war protesters in the Middle East). It doesn't fit the metaphor of money laundering, of turning dirty money into clean, but it's usually prosecuted under the same statutes.

petertodd 3y ago
That isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud: you took money for one purpose, and used it for something the donators didn't want it used for. Notably, it is not money laundering to obscure the source of funds when they didn't come from an illicit source. Nor is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.
- bagels 3y ago
  What statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Money laundering can be defined as concealing either or both the source and destination of the funds. Channeling legal money into illegal activities qualifies as well. Not clear either is applicable to this case however.
- dmurray 3y ago
  No, the donators gave you the money to use as you see fit. You're not betraying their trust: you're betraying your government, by funding a movement with aims inimical to them. A relevant statute in the US is the USA PATRIOT Act [0], specifically Title III, which deals with "International money laundering abatement and terrorist financing". It absolutely does restrict transmission of clean money to non-favoured political entities, often in the same breath as it forbids actual money laundering. It does not forbid withdrawing cash from an ATM, but it does forbid a bank from issuing you an ATM card if they should have guessed you would use the money for the wrong purposes. [0] https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
  - webspinner 3y ago
    The PATRIOT act is bad, and it needs to go the way of the creamitorium.
yieldcrv 3y ago
mmm actually no. money laundering - the federal crime - relies, absolutely relies on their being an illicit origin. it cannot be charged independently and relies on discovering there was an illicit origin and moving to prosecute that. think harder about it and successful money laundering is impossible to be convicted of as an illicit origin is never discovered and probable cause is never established to get the subpoenas. seems that nobody ever imagined that the jury convicts someone on the money laundering charge and the judge acquits on the illicit origin charge amongst others. this does seem to require an appeal to rectify and everyone agrees he has a big chance of this getting dropped on appeal too, since its just dangling disconnected from its requirements. the other things you’re talking about would be prosecuted under different laws.
- refurb 3y ago
  > money laundering - the federal crime - relies, absolutely relies on their being an illicit origin. it cannot be charged independently and relies on discovering there was an illicit origin and moving to prosecute that. There are money laundering laws that require it be illicit funds. But there are also transaction reporting requirements - like generating a currency transaction report (CTR) - that don't require the funds to be illicit. It just requires that you attempt to circumvent them. "The transaction is designed to evade any regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act"
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    yes “structuring” is illegal. its not a “money laundering law”, perhaps a capital control. its unproductive to play into the idea that all movement of money is laundering and it isnt moving a discussion forward when the language is conflating everything. I can see the categorization of "AML" - anti-money laundering law. I think then that the context hasn't been made clear, when we are discussing the actual criminal charge of money laundering, versus the criminal charge of structuring or avoiding a transaction reporting threshold.
    - refurb 2y ago
      Meh... it's the media. I wouldn't expect any precision in their reporting. "Man guilty of violating laws in place to prevent money laundering" becomes "Man guilty of money laundering".

petertodd 3y ago

That isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud: you took money for one purpose, and used it for something the donators didn't want it used for. Notably, it is not money laundering to obscure the source of funds when they didn't come from an illicit source. Nor is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.

bagels 3y ago
What statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
CPLX 3y ago
Money laundering can be defined as concealing either or both the source and destination of the funds. Channeling legal money into illegal activities qualifies as well. Not clear either is applicable to this case however.
dmurray 3y ago
No, the donators gave you the money to use as you see fit. You're not betraying their trust: you're betraying your government, by funding a movement with aims inimical to them. A relevant statute in the US is the USA PATRIOT Act [0], specifically Title III, which deals with "International money laundering abatement and terrorist financing". It absolutely does restrict transmission of clean money to non-favoured political entities, often in the same breath as it forbids actual money laundering. It does not forbid withdrawing cash from an ATM, but it does forbid a bank from issuing you an ATM card if they should have guessed you would use the money for the wrong purposes. [0] https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
- webspinner 3y ago
  The PATRIOT act is bad, and it needs to go the way of the creamitorium.

yieldcrv 3y ago

mmm actually no. money laundering - the federal crime - relies, absolutely relies on their being an illicit origin. it cannot be charged independently and relies on discovering there was an illicit origin and moving to prosecute that. think harder about it and successful money laundering is impossible to be convicted of as an illicit origin is never discovered and probable cause is never established to get the subpoenas. seems that nobody ever imagined that the jury convicts someone on the money laundering charge and the judge acquits on the illicit origin charge amongst others. this does seem to require an appeal to rectify and everyone agrees he has a big chance of this getting dropped on appeal too, since its just dangling disconnected from its requirements. the other things you’re talking about would be prosecuted under different laws.

refurb 3y ago
> money laundering - the federal crime - relies, absolutely relies on their being an illicit origin. it cannot be charged independently and relies on discovering there was an illicit origin and moving to prosecute that. There are money laundering laws that require it be illicit funds. But there are also transaction reporting requirements - like generating a currency transaction report (CTR) - that don't require the funds to be illicit. It just requires that you attempt to circumvent them. "The transaction is designed to evade any regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act"
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  yes “structuring” is illegal. its not a “money laundering law”, perhaps a capital control. its unproductive to play into the idea that all movement of money is laundering and it isnt moving a discussion forward when the language is conflating everything. I can see the categorization of "AML" - anti-money laundering law. I think then that the context hasn't been made clear, when we are discussing the actual criminal charge of money laundering, versus the criminal charge of structuring or avoiding a transaction reporting threshold.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Meh... it's the media. I wouldn't expect any precision in their reporting. "Man guilty of violating laws in place to prevent money laundering" becomes "Man guilty of money laundering".