If you know that your money is legally obtained and put it in the same jar (for privacy purposes, for instance), you probably know that you are facilitating somebody else's money laundering (but are unlikely to be charged for it).
This could be for personal reasons--perhaps I'm purchasing health-related products/services...or something less high-minded like sex toys--or for professional reasons. I could be running payroll, paying suppliers, etc. and don't want everyone, including my competitors, to have easy access to all my financial activity.
If my source of money is inconvenient or embarrassing but legal, it’s not at all obvious to me that tumbling cash is illegal.
The limited research I did suggests it’s illegal iff the source of my original money is not legal.
But I suspect that as the accuracy of the analogy goes up, so too does the inherent sketchiness to the reader, which is probably not what the author wants.
That's not necessarily true. This coinswap proposal [1] aggregates a set of self-spends (wallet spending a balance back to itself) and in the process obfuscates the transaction graph.
[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/mimblewimble-coinswap-proposal/8322
Obviously illegally obtained money is illegally obtained regardless of the number of hoops you go through to hide it.
If I have $100 from an unknown source, and then I put it into the jar and get $100 back out, I still have $100 from an unknown source. I can't say, "well, I got the $100 from the jar." The rules of the jar are you have to put $100 in to get $100 out. So, where did the initial $100 come from? Still unknown!