I've sat through numerous courses on money laundering, and under none of the definitons used in any of those courses would transfering money from your savings account to your checking account to pay your visa bill be considered laundering, (unless the money in your savings account was acquired in a criminal way).

Check out the https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa%5Faml%5Finfobase/documents/regulat... Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. Every part of the definition requires the money be the proceeds or involved in a specified illegal activity.

Yes, and the "illegal activity" can be "money laundering"

Can you point to the statute where you get that interpretation from? Preferably with court proceedings that show that a judge has actually decided that that is money laundering. Because I find that statement incredibly hard to believe.

Not to mention that you're completely ignoring GP's point, which is that it seems that money laundering may be occurring in an ICO. Is your claim that people only use ICOs to transfer money from a savings to a checking account to pay their VISA bills? Seems to me like there's a more airtight argument you might be able to come up with, given your self-proclaimed experience in the topic.

I was asking you to provide evidence for this statement:

> Literally, under the legal definition, that's "laundering".

"Legal definitions" are defined through laws and common law interpretations of those laws. I was asking for evidence of either. Otherwise you're just making statements without any evidence. It's not a straw-man to better define your statement of "that's the legal definition" to mean "there has been a court case or statute where it has been shown that's what the law says" and then ask for proof of that. Maybe you can explain what you think a "legal definition" is and provide evidence of that?

"It's a thought crime."

uhm wat?