3 ms·
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 fra
by petertodd 2y 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 2y agoWhat statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
- CPLX 2y agoMoney 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 2y agoNo, 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 2y agoThe PATRIOT act is bad, and it needs to go the way of the creamitorium.