Interestingly, not with the existing laws. Since you can move up to $10,000 per day without any reports being filed, a criminal laundering under $3.6m/year could theoretically fly under the radar.
> And doesn't the war on drugs create violent criminals?
Yes, but there are plenty of other crimes unrelated to drugs that bring in money. I'm all for decriminalization of drugs (it's a health problem, not a crime problem), but that doesn't mean I'm in favour of allowing money laundering.
I just think you might be missing the forest for the trees here. There's lots of reasons not to want money laundering to be legal. Think of all the other places illicit money comes from; I want those crimes not to pay very well at all.
It is also illegal to move money in such a way as to evade the reporting requirements ('structuring', what they nailed Dennis Hastert for).
Theoretically!
> Yes, but there are plenty of other crimes unrelated to drugs that bring in money.
> Think of all the other places illicit money comes from
All very handwavey. Whenever I've read anything about money laundering it's about drugs, terrorism, & organised crime. And isn't a large part of organised crime drugs?
This has nothing to do with money laundering. Money laundering requires that the money is dirty. This is essential making private wealth illegal regardless of the legality of the source.
And doesn't the war on drugs create violent criminals?
Doesn't an illegal market in drugs allow terrorists to profit from said market?
It seems to me Joe Schmo takes the brunt of these laws. All the while a bunch of cheap suits get to justify their jobs.