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.

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.