It is indeed a no-win dilemma, because “money laundering” is a made-up non-crime with premises so impossibly absurd that they would be comical, if the implications were not deadly serious.
Somebody needs to call out the emperor’s unclothes here.
Human societies existed for thousands of years before the very recent invention of the concepts underlying modern “anti money laundering” statutes and regulations. Some of those societies were more stable, and had less crime, than any society in the world today. They were not “libertarian” societies, either. They simply had not invented the ridiculous notion that it is a crime to avoid having all money watched for “suspicious activity” at all times—just in case somebody may potentially use money to commit another crime.
What “money laundering” boils down to is a frightful bogey to herd human livestock into an un-unbanked pen of perpetual surveillance, Kafkaesque rules, and most importantly, the ability to extract confiscatory taxes oft exceeding the proportion of real value extracted from the labours of old-fashioned slaves.
The “money laundering” discussion has been framed in such a way that most people never pause to question the underlying assumptions. Don’t be
False-dilemma evasion. Also a “crime”, in the current year.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I get crickets whenever I bring this up.
Anti money laundering laws are just "you have to tell the government about every transaction you make" laws.
And if you oppose them you're obviously some mob boss trying to move your money from the latest movie style heist.