>The crime is defined in statute as a matter of convenience for the state because having privacy regarding where money comes from/goes makes it harder for them to prosecute other "real" crimes so they define that privacy as criminal in and of itself.
Of course and that's a very understandable thing. Legibility and transparency are the basis of prosecuting almost any crime. it's why companies are forced to keep records and do accounting, why there's limits on anonimity and so on. That didn't go over my head at all, it's perfectly reasonable. Tools that exist almost exclusively to facilitate criminal activity and render impossible the capacity of the state to detect such activity are 'inherently pretty bad'. Imagine if someone tried to sell a vehicle that's invisible and that would stop border security from doing its job. Pretty unpopular I'd bet.
Are you also surprised that forgery is a crime despite the fact that harm is usually done when that forgery is used? What is this, the "guns don't kill people" of bookkeeping?
Of course and that's a very understandable thing. Legibility and transparency are the basis of prosecuting almost any crime. it's why companies are forced to keep records and do accounting, why there's limits on anonimity and so on. That didn't go over my head at all, it's perfectly reasonable. Tools that exist almost exclusively to facilitate criminal activity and render impossible the capacity of the state to detect such activity are 'inherently pretty bad'. Imagine if someone tried to sell a vehicle that's invisible and that would stop border security from doing its job. Pretty unpopular I'd bet.
Are you also surprised that forgery is a crime despite the fact that harm is usually done when that forgery is used? What is this, the "guns don't kill people" of bookkeeping?