[dmatech]

I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straightforward.

[300bps]

I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring.

So there are two possibilities.

1. You think the government shouldn't be allowed to track money laundering

2. You have a suggestion on improving money laundering tracking without anti-structuring laws

If you believe the government has a legitimate vested interest in stopping money laundering and you set a $10,000 limit before something must be reported, the reporting requirement might as well not exist if someone can deposit $9999.99 literally 100 times per day without a report being generated.

So what would your suggestion be on how to track money laundering? Or do you just think that's none of the government's business?

[jimmydorry]

The answer isn't to then set the $10,000 limit and add an opaque criteria of "but the limit doesn't matter if we look at your transactions and think you are hiding something".

Something more reasonable may be: a limit of $10,000 per month (or any time frame) before mandatory reporting. That of course means dropping the hand wavy exception completely.

[pyuser583]

Requiring actual criminal proceeds. Simply wanting to avoid government attention should not be illegal. Covering up a crime should be.