> I don't understand this. How can anyone know whether what they are doing is wrong unless those rules are built into the structure of the law and the infrastru

> I don't understand this. How can anyone know whether what they are doing is wrong unless those rules are built into the structure of the law and the infrastructure of banks? Criminalizing secondary and tertiary acts related to a crime is a disturbing trend. There's an act that is broadly regarded as a crime -- in this case, tax evasion or money laundering. Well those crimes are hard to detect. So we create a new reporting requirements law. Well, that's easy to circumvent by moving money in smaller amounts. So we create a new law that makes it a crime to move money in smaller chunks if it is related to avoiding reporting requirements. This is problematic. It makes acts illegal that viewed in isolation are widely regarded as perfectly legal. Even worse, these secondary acts are commonly done legally by many citizens. What citizen doesn't move money around in small chunks? This gives a lot of discretion to the government to charge you with a crime. Afterall, your actions on their face are very similar to that of tax evaders. In fact, even my earlier example of money laundering is one of these secondary crimes because it is used to clean the money obtained through illegal activity.