What if I think investigators are following me, so I get a friend to drive my car around all day, "wasting" their time. Am I now guilty of a crime? Seems like Uber did the same kinda thing.

If you believe that they are attempting to investigate you, and you intend to lead them on a wild goose chase, then it would be obstruction of justice. The word mincing that you're trying to do here is like trying to claim that murdering someone is just "moving some molecules around" and "moving molecules around isn't illegal."

If you put into action a plan that's intent is to mislead investigators that you believe are attempting to investigate you, then how do you claim that this can't be obstruction of justice? They are attempting to obstruct the investigation.

What you are doing to trying to evaluate the action separate from the intent, and claim that it's innocuous because there could be many explanations for the action.

Obviously at trial, the DoJ would be trying to prove intent, so trying to ignore it doesn't really make sense.

What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?

Your points relating to Uber stand, I'm just wondering how it'd work in the case of an individual feeling like they are being shadowed.

> What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?

Then you have your lawyer make that argument in court and try to convince the jury.

So it doesn't really matter what I do. If I have the intention to obstruct justice then I can stay at home and act criminally by doing so? Nice one. At this point I'm sure I'm a criminal. I don't know what my crime is, but I'm sure layers will tell me before they throw me into jail.

It does matter what you do. Criminal law recognizes two elements to a crime:

mens rea ("guilty mind") and actus reus ("guilty act")

http://law.jrank.org/pages/22506/Criminal-Law-Elements-Crime...

If there's no actus reus in your example, then there's no crime.

Intent is a factor.

Also, even though law is like computer code in being pretty specific and executable, it's unlike computer code in being executed by humans.

Or, like XKCD puts it, https://xkcd.com/1494/.

Or, more simply, judges are not stupid and can figure out if you're playing games with them.

If the prosecutor is able to prove intent and you had committed some other crime as well then yes, you and your friend could potentially both be convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice. This isn't some kind of game; judges don't look favorably on defendants playing tricks.

That sounds as fake of a crime as money laundering. Certainly misleading officials that haven't identified as being on official business should not be a crime.

The point wasn't who you ended up misleading, but that your intent was to mislead investigators in particular. Throwing a brick off the top of a building into a crowded street is attempted murder, even if it doesn't hit anybody, because clearly you had intent to drop the brick on a person's head.

*as

How is money laundering a "fake" crime?

A lot of usual situations like moving cash in excess of 10k euros without declaring it have been recently classified as attempts to launder money. In fact this is just how borrow happy states are hunting for taxes nowadays. Eliminating cash is their target. That way they can just take the money out of your account. Just look at India or other socialist states like Sweeden trying to eliminate cash while trumpeting that it's used for "money laundering".

Typically it is illegal to not report a transaction over 10k. That is the law that was broken, not "money laundering" of course if you move a lot of money around just under the 10k, that is legal unless you knowingly break it up so that you don't have to report it.

In what jurisdiction do I have to report transferring more than $10,000? That's an obligation of the bank, not individuals using banks.

(At least in the U.S. Do EU citizens have to report themselves for such transactions?)

No, the bank doesn't need to report it, they have transaction records on file. It's specifically about moving cash in excess of 10k euros. It's the same i nthe US, you have to report cash payments in excess to $10k to the IRS.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/cash-contro...

In Greece they have even extended this to other comodities such as gold and you have to report it regardless if you're moving it or not, otherwise they can freely confiscate it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-01/greeks-told-declare...

> (At least in the U.S. Do EU citizens have to report themselves for such transactions?)

No, but transactions over X € must be conducted using a traceable medium - cheques, credit cards, bank transfer, sometimes Bitcoin. X varies by country.

Conducting transactions above X € in cash doesn't automatically constitute criminal money laundering, of course, it just gets fined.

As a Swede I find using us as an example hilarious. We are not a country which has traditionally cared too much about money laundering, most of our anti-money laundering stuff comes from other EU countries via the EU. And we definitely definitely do not have any problems with the tax revenue, our socialist government might even lower corporate taxes next year due to the current stable government income.

As for eliminating cash, yes we try to do that, but the reason given is not money laundering. The two reason/excuses which are commonly given are 1) preventing tax evasion and 2) preventing store robberies. Also note that the ones most heavily pushing for elimination of cash is not our government but our banks. I think card payments are much more profitable for banks compared to cash. But it is not like our government makes a secret about that its regulations surrounding cash payments are there to prevent tax fraud.

And the worst country for when it comes to hunting taxes is probably the US. A couple of days ago I had to sign two forms when opening a bank account where I guaranteed that I had no ties to America. Many smaller European banks wont even accept American citizens as customers due to the extra paper work to report stuff to the American IRS.

I have money for whatever reason. I pump it through a business of mine, paying taxes, etc. Normally this is totally fine - I'm not using it to commit fraud against investors, I'm paying taxes, etc. The important thing is that no one is being harmed, it's just me seeking some privacy in my own finances, and perhaps losing some money for the privilege (I may be spending post-tax money).

Or perhaps it's simpler than that. I have a bunch of money in geographic location A, and I want to spend it in B, so I put it in a suitcase and walk/fly/drive on over.

Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.

The sad thing is, they've won. They've made "money laundering" sound like something serious, instead of totally made up to make their jobs easy, and people seem to support such laws.

Maybe they'll call encryption "data laundering", "bit smuggling", "safety obstruction" or something catchy to get people against it.

Money laundering is lying on federal documents, claiming your business is making more than it really is. And there's no reason to do it unless you've gotten the money illegally: otherwise you could just report to the IRS why you really have that money. And you suggest people are/should be able to lie on federal forms in the name of privacy?

If it is known (proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that the money was acquired illegally, then mission accomplished. Convict them of the actual crime. If not, then the "crime" of moving money around in unconventional ways does seem pretty bogus - a way to punish someone on a hunch without the hassle of actually producing evidence. Much like when police search for drugs and fail to find anything, so they just take any money they find instead.

Often the actual laundering process is done by a third party who takes a cut. A middleman who provides money laundering as a service to criminals. Under your scheme that person wouldn't be committing a crime and could not be prosecuted.

But that's beside the point. The crime isn't "moving money around in unconventional ways," it's lying to the IRS and other government agencies. It's signing your name on all those tax documents that say "under penalty of perjury" after filling them in with false information.

If someone commits perjury, convict them of perjury. There's no need to invent yet another crime. But I suspect it's not perjury. If a laundromat has an extra $500k of income and reports it as income, paying all relevant taxes, then so be it. If there is proof that the money came from criminal activity, then convict someone of that crime. Otherwise it's just a hunch.

One of the purposes of making money laundering a crime is that it makes it possible to investigate other crimes. You know the mob is making money and you know they're moving that money around somehow. Making money laundering a crime gives investigators a place to start their investigations. If they think a laundromat is a front for the mob, they can prove that by counting how many people are using it and comparing that to how much money they're putting in the bank at the end of the month. They can then get a warrant to investigate further. A judge shouldn't issue a warrant on a laundromat for investigating a murder when there's no clear thread that connects the two. A judge could however issue a warrant to investigate money laundering when you know the laundromat's books don't add up.

And thusly we went full-circle back to the OP:

Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.

Investigating organized crime would be significantly harder without being able to follow a paper trail. I'd rather have the police be able to get legitimate warrants to investigate actually suspicious activity than have them operate by illegal and unethical means.

Making it a crime serves as a deterrent for illegal activity. So when you prove the money came from criminal activity you can convict them for the criminal activity and the money laundering.

This seems similar to how we punish some crimes worse if you thought something mean about the person you committed the crime against.

What lie is required? You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS. Where's the lie?

Edit: Keep in mind if your original money you evaded taxes on, that's already a crime. As is committing crimes, if that's how you got the money. "Laundering" is just a non-crime used to make LE's job easy, expanding power and reducing privacy. AML and KYC laws are an affront to liberty.

> You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS.

So, assuming that money isn't illicitly gotten, I'm pretty sure that's not money laundering.

It's not my job to prove the money is acquired legally, it's the investigator's job to prove otherwise.

You don't have to prove that that money is obtained legally. You do have to refrain from knowingly transacting with illegally obtained money. If a reasonable person would be aware that the money you are handling is not acquired legally, you can be found culpable.

You can say it's "not your job" all you like--if you are operating in the United States, you are not correct and it would go very poorly for you to try.

Yeah but in order to do that they need a warrant. If you're moving around money like that, it's very likely you got that money illegally. I'm no fan of the police, but sometimes following the paper trail is the only place to start an investigation. I'd rather the police be able to get a legitimate warrant to investigate something than have them operate in lesd than legal ways.

Three is no lie, and there is no money laundering. The problem is if you order 1000 pizzas, you are charged for them, the pizza place claims they made then, but they only delivered 1000 empty boxes... Now there is laundering going on.

There's only a lie if you don't make the pizzas.

>What lie is required? You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS. Where's the lie?

1. I'm not sure why you'd do that. You'd have to pay taxes on the money twice as ordering pizzas is not tax deducible.

2. You'd then have to make 1000 pizzas.

I don't think you understand what money laundering is.

How is money laundering a 'fake' crime?

Note to self: if I find a car following me, I should immediately turn myself in to authorities or face "repercussions".

It would likely be the safe thing to do? Are you going to drive to your house or workplace and park and see what they do?

Maybe the repercussions wouldn't be from the authorities, in your hypothetical situation.

You're missing the other point. You had to also have committed a crime.

Wtf are you saying?

Well, there's civil forfeiture ;)

I wonder if that's been used against Uber drivers.