None of these allegations have been proven in court. If the investigator in charge is so certain that the individuals conducting these transactions are members of organized crime groups, and the money came from criminal activity, why haven't any charges being laid against them?
With money laundering laws, the government doesn't have to prove any crime happened. It does an end run around due process.
The government focuses on a symptom (money laundering) of an underlying problem (organized crime generating hundreds of millions of dollars from criminal enterprises), enlists the media to make sensationalist claims about said symptom based on hearsay, and builds public consent for invasive new surveillance laws that criminalize financial privacy and seize private property without the government having to prove any crime happened (civil forfeiture).
Meanwhile, the underlying problem that the government professed to be concerned about is allowed to fester.
With money laundering laws, the government doesn't have to prove any crime happened. It does an end run around due process.
The government focuses on a symptom (money laundering) of an underlying problem (organized crime generating hundreds of millions of dollars from criminal enterprises), enlists the media to make sensationalist claims about said symptom based on hearsay, and builds public consent for invasive new surveillance laws that criminalize financial privacy and seize private property without the government having to prove any crime happened (civil forfeiture).
Meanwhile, the underlying problem that the government professed to be concerned about is allowed to fester.