[toolz]

Criminals and launderers have never and will likely never need to incorporate. Sure, it's a tool they might use, but at best you'd take some of their margins away from them. Doesn't seem like a great trade to me, stealing some of the criminals profits in exchange for exposing the people who need privacy.

[BLKNSLVR]

Launderers are always incorporated. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to launder.

[toolz]

that's not true, you can launder money many ways without incorporating or even using a company...just one example would be paying cash for used vehicles and reselling them...or buying crypto mining hardware - that's just off the top of my head as someone with zero experience laundering. I have to imagine the pros are better at coming up with ways than I am...

[BLKNSLVR]

Not disagreeing with your point, but I would think (personal opinion, so feel free to entirely discard) that there are scales of laundering, and the top end of the scale, where governments should be focusing most energy/worry, couldn't be achieved on a 'personal' basis - although potentially on the mutli-personal basis, but I'd also think that would introduce risk if each person is able to be linked.

Happy to be proven wrong though, and to hear counter-anecdotes (I find it incredibly interesting). Systems and loopholes and patches and 'bugs'.

[toolz]

Well, at the highest scales they launder in plain sight with completely de-anonymized banks and the banks get a slap on the wrist. So that might be considered a different category of problem all together.