I’m reminded of the scene in the movie Blow when he is arguing with the judge that its not a real crime.

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.

The point that went right over the head of you and the head of the other authoritarian that he is responding to is that there is no victim, not even a risk of a victim or any other bad "externality" (to use a word I know you people love) to money laundering just as a standalone act. The crime is defined in statute as a matter of convenience for the state because having privacy regarding where money comes from/goes makes it harder for them to prosecute other "real" crimes so they define that privacy as criminal in and of itself. But there is nothing inherently bad about the act of laundering in and of itself (unless you believe in guilt/badness by association) hence why he is referring to it as a "fake crime". Obscuring the sources of one's money is no more of a standalone crime than encrypting one's data is.

IANAL, not a US citizen and I have no intention to dig into how the US defines money laundering.

That said, when I hear "money laundering", I exclusively interpret this as the act of whitewashing money aquired by illegal means (e.g. drug sales, extortion, fencing stolen goods etc.) in order to make it appear legitimate. In that regard, there is nothing that is not bad about money laundering (IMHO).

Of course you could argue that it should be possible to hide the source of your money or even the money itself from the government, but as a consequence, you would have to accept that at the very least, your country would have no longer any means to fight crime.

>Of course you could argue that it should be possible to hide the source of your money or even the money itself from the government, but as a consequence, you would have to accept that at the very least, your country would have no longer any means to fight crime.

Conflating having one less specific statute to prosecute people for violating with "no longer having any means to fight crime" brings to mind a famous Churchill quote about the electorate.

The money they are laundering doesn't come from nowhere. It's the proceeds of other crimes, with real victims.

A person laundering is an accessory to other crimes.

>The crime is defined in statute as a matter of convenience for the state because having privacy regarding where money comes from/goes makes it harder for them to prosecute other "real" crimes so they define that privacy as criminal in and of itself.

Of course and that's a very understandable thing. Legibility and transparency are the basis of prosecuting almost any crime. it's why companies are forced to keep records and do accounting, why there's limits on anonimity and so on. That didn't go over my head at all, it's perfectly reasonable. Tools that exist almost exclusively to facilitate criminal activity and render impossible the capacity of the state to detect such activity are 'inherently pretty bad'. Imagine if someone tried to sell a vehicle that's invisible and that would stop border security from doing its job. Pretty unpopular I'd bet.

Are you also surprised that forgery is a crime despite the fact that harm is usually done when that forgery is used? What is this, the "guns don't kill people" of bookkeeping?

That's a bit like saying there is nothing inherently wrong with cleaning up a dead body, you don't want to just leave dead bodies to sit around and rot, so therefore "tampering with a crime scene" is a "fake crime".

Yet, it is done. Just not always. Obstruction of Justice is a crime. As is failing to report income from a crime, on your taxes.

But the woman who ordered the videotapes of US torture sessions erased was appointed head of CIA, instead of being prosecuted. Meanwhile, the whistleblower Jeffrey Skilling was charged with mishandling information that was only classified after he last touched it.

No…