It's kind of similar to tax evasion really. Most people that got their money through illegal means wouldn't file the tax properly and thus need to hide it. it's just an easy way for the government to collect the taxes due to shut down the entire system.
If you noticed in the press coverage that Preet Bharara invites you to get your money back if you were using Liberty Reserve for legit purposes. Well criminals aren't obviously going to call. and if you call, well, probably need to start reporting them in taxes as well. govt takes all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/liberty-reserve-operators-accused-of-money-laundering.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Topic: Is "money laundering" really that big of a deal? - page 5. (Read 5176 times)
It is all about getting their cut.
its not about getting their cut. fiat is owned by the governments. so its not a cut.. they own it all anyways.. all they want is to control who has it and how much those that have it use for crimes.
the fiat in your pocket is not yours.. it is the governments, they just have a free licence for citizens of that country to use, unless it is found to be used for crimes, where they can revoke your freedom to use their property (take your fiat off you).
now your seeing the benefit of bitcoin.. its not theirs!!
"money laundering" is an artificial, made-up crime.
It was created by the ability to track monetary transactions, not by any real evildoing.
People committed crimes since ages, but only at the point when it became possible, thinkable or feasible actually to track monetary transactions, such a thing like "money laundering" started to exist.
Thus, applying the same logic: once it is thinkable to "optimise" the human genome, there will be a new crime: spreading "unoptimised" genes.
It was created by the ability to track monetary transactions, not by any real evildoing.
People committed crimes since ages, but only at the point when it became possible, thinkable or feasible actually to track monetary transactions, such a thing like "money laundering" started to exist.
Thus, applying the same logic: once it is thinkable to "optimise" the human genome, there will be a new crime: spreading "unoptimised" genes.
Ask the IRS, they're the ones you have to answer to.
And that is the whole point behind locking down the currency claiming they care about money laundering because of terrorists and drug dealers.
It is all about getting their cut.
Ask the IRS, they're the ones you have to answer to.
There are all of these rules and laws about "money laundering" to make it sound so scary and evil like Scarface moving his dirty money.
But what is money laundering anyway? Someone commits a crime involving money and does not want that money traced back to them for that crime, so they launder the money.
So essentially, these are monetary crimes. And since the law enforcement cannot solve the crime or catch the "bad guys" they have to lock down the whole monetary system just in case "bad" money makes it through.
So because some people may use money for bad things and they are too incompetent to catch them, the government must know every transaction that anyone ever makes with money?
Why stop there? Why not have ID checks at every corner of every city of every country so that if a crime happens on one street they can trace the crime by knowing who was on that street at that time? Oh, but those of us who would be against that would be "supporting terrorists" or drug dealers and criminals.
Sure, if someone steals money from someone else it would be nice to track that money down. But is it worth locking down a whole currency because of it?
But what is money laundering anyway? Someone commits a crime involving money and does not want that money traced back to them for that crime, so they launder the money.
So essentially, these are monetary crimes. And since the law enforcement cannot solve the crime or catch the "bad guys" they have to lock down the whole monetary system just in case "bad" money makes it through.
So because some people may use money for bad things and they are too incompetent to catch them, the government must know every transaction that anyone ever makes with money?
Why stop there? Why not have ID checks at every corner of every city of every country so that if a crime happens on one street they can trace the crime by knowing who was on that street at that time? Oh, but those of us who would be against that would be "supporting terrorists" or drug dealers and criminals.
Sure, if someone steals money from someone else it would be nice to track that money down. But is it worth locking down a whole currency because of it?
Jump to: