[ajross]

This is so frustrating to argue. I genuinely don't understand how you think circles like this will ever lead back to "huge private transactions are totally valid".

Where exactly do you expect to get that "large sum of cash" except from a bank? (Or conversely, what is the recipient expected to do with it except deposit it?) You're right that the enforcement of the law focuses on the entities (banks and other financial actors) who manage large transactions. If you had an "individual" doing that sort of thing regularly[1], you should absolutely expect to seem them regulated under AML statues.

What you want you can't have. You don't have it now. You won't have it in the crypto future. We've decided to make what you want illegal, and no amount of arguing on HN is going to change that.

[1] Like, for example, an operator of a money laundering tool on the ethereum network.

[DennisP]

Ok but you're making unsourced claims again. I'm just asking for a source. You mentioned the BSA before, and when I looked it up it didn't seem to apply.

There are people who occasionally sell expensive things for cash, and people who keep a lot of cash in safes. My claim is that those activities are legal. You have not provided a statute or regulation saying it's illegal.

(There's no way for me to reference a statute for my claim, because we write laws saying what's prohibited, not what's allowed.)

[ajross]

> There are people who occasionally sell expensive things for cash

There are not, not in practice. And to the extent there are they they do so by converting that cash to traceable assets in banks subject to know-your-customer rules who are able to attest to the validity of those transactions. To the extent that you have private entities doing very large, regular cash transactions that are not visible to AML regulators, that practice is not presumptively legal (nor common, except for literal criminals). You know this. I know you know this. Just ask a lawyer if you think you could get away with that. You can't.

Hiding behind a "if this and this and this were true then you could evade AML rules" as a technicality (effectively: that there are edge cases not covered under existing statutes) is not arguing for the legality of the kind of pervasive laundering enabled by a crypto mixer, and you know it.

[DennisP]

I never claimed it was legal for "regular" large transactions, which would imply the person is in business. I do claim it's perfectly legal for occasional, large personal transactions. (Of course it's also legal for regular small transactions.)

But I'll quit since it's clear you're not going to reference any sort of law saying this is illegal.