> In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around.

I very much understand that, but you missed my point with that constraint: the point was that if your objection is that legal underlying activity can constitute money laundering, then to prove your objection you need to show an example of provably legal underlying activity.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that innocent-before-proven-guilty isn't being upheld by courts, that's a fine complaint, but an entirely separate one from money laundering.

> What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.

In other words he did conceal illegal activity. Hence my point.

Every single bank and person conceals illegal activity by your final sentence. You probably have sold something for cash bought by a drug dealer and unknowingly laundered drug money.

The point here is that an unwitting actor is somehow guilty if they did not do KYC. By your standard basically every gas station near the border is a money launderer, since they know damn well much of the cash they take and transmit is drug and cartel money.

And that's the genius of this line of reasoning. There is nary a dollar in circulation that hasnt been used in crime.

Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts. I wasn't trying to make a case for what money laundering is, only what (as I understand it) it definitely isn't. The example you cite clearly covered up underlying criminal activity, whereas the claim was that you can be guilty of money laundering without any illegal underlying crime. Hence it fails to support the premise. That is all.

>Again, you're mixing things up and moving goalposts

No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering.

>he example you cite

You asked for an example of proving something not illegal in court. You know damn well that's not the standard used in criminal law, it was a trick question which I tried to answer how I thought you meant to ask until I realized you were being duplicitous.

>without any illegal underlying crime.

This is a false understanding of money laundering. It isn't sufficient that there be illegal money involved, there should be mens rea of such. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience. Good day.

> No you're mixing things. I said acts of privacy (with listed examples of reporting large transactions) are made illegal, then you went to only money laundering.

How did I move to money laundering? Are we reading the same thread? The comment I initially replied to specifically said, "Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering"?

> you were being duplicitous. Your premise is a lie designed to mislead the audience.

It's quite the opposite, but your personal swipes are pretty uncalled for, so I won't continue.