|
|
|
|
|
by konschubert
3251 days ago
|
|
It is only money laundering if is done with money that is the result of a crime. Just like a trader is only a fence when he trades stolen good. Therefore, by definition, money laundering is assisting a crime. If the crime had a victim, then, by proxy, laundering the money of the crime is not victimless either. |
|
Also, using your argument about money laundering, what about a restaurant that serves mostly mafioso, but never engages in any unlawful activity themselves. They are providing food to criminals, which is even more critical to their criminal enterprise. After all, the mafia can't commit crimes if they can't eat, right? And they are paid with funds that result from crimes. By your analogy, the restaurant owner is assisting in a crime. So should that restaurant owner be charged with some kind of new crime? (like money laundering is a relatively new crime that has been created over the past 50 years) Like, criminal gastronomy, feeding in the 3rd degree, or something?