BANKTHINK
THE MONETARY FUTURE
Partner Insights

Money Laundering Is Financial Thoughtcrime

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (18)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

When people hear the term money laundering today, they envision the most evil of acts, in which gangsters process satchels of cash through a fabricated company to show it as business revenue. Words and semantics are very important in this post-9/11 world, and as far as creating a negative connotation, that parlance has been extremely effective.

At its essence, money laundering is the act of concealing money or assets from the state to prevent its loss through taxation, judgment enforcement, or blatant confiscation. However, as the late J. Orlin Grabbe wrote: "Anyone who has studied the evolution of money-laundering statutes in the U.S. and elsewhere will realize that the 'crime' of money laundering boils down to a single, basic prohibited act: Doing something and not telling the government about it."

Protecting one's wealth is interwoven with the history of trade and banking which has existed since the dawn of commerce. Sterling Seagrave's Lords of the Rim describes how some 2,000 years before Christ, merchants in China would hide their wealth from rulers who would simply take it from them and subsequently banish them. This concealment involved moving the wealth and investing it in remote provinces or outside China.

Part myth, part rumor, the plausible tale of Mafia gangsters running huge amounts of cash from extortion, prostitution, gambling and bootleg liquor through existing Laundromats accounts for the phrase money laundering.

Also during this period, Al Capone was convicted in October 1931 for tax evasion, which is what earned the prosecutor's conviction rather than the predicate crimes that generated his illicit income. Capone's episode inspired Meyer Lansky, the mob's accountant, who structured elaborate international and Swiss financial facilities for safely securing money and vowed never to suffer Capone's fate.

Lansky is credited with designing one of the first real laundering techniques, the use of the "loan-back" concept, which disguised allegedly illegal money within "loans" provided by compliant foreign banks. The money could then be justified as revenue and a tax deduction for interest expense obtained in the process.

Without any method of tracking cash or bank activity, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970, heralding the age of transaction reporting, including the Currency Transaction Report (Form 4789), the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (Form 4790), and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (Form TD F 90-22.1). In the United States, the Money Laundering Control Act formally made money laundering a federal crime.

Internationally, the elements of the crime of money laundering are set forth in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Also, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, founded in 1989 on the initiative of the Group of Seven industrialized nations, is an intergovernmental organization whose purpose is to develop policies to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

From President Roosevelt's 1933 seizure of personal gold to the Nazi confiscation of Jewish wealth to the recent deposit theft at Cyprus banks, asset plundering by governments has a long and colorful tradition. Protecting wealth from oppressive regimes continues to this day.

It's highly political and also a matter of perspective whether protection from confiscation is a justifiable activity. Government access to wealth is at the heart of the issue and it matters not if it's hiding money or cleaning money.

Therefore, the artificial crime of "money laundering" had to be invented, mainly because more direct and traditional methods of enforcing certain laws yielded little result. Think of it as driving without a lightbulb above the license plate being a felony because thieves might drive away in the night. All must participate in illuminating the way to be tracked. More than anything, this is a clear sign of regulatory desperation.

Money laundering has been called the thoughtcrime of finance. Isn't it really just banking with someone's possibly nefarious intentions attached to the act? It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen vehicle. The theft of the vehicle may have been illegal and immoral but the act of purchasing a donut is not. Money laundering is not pre-crime but post-crime. And, it's difficult to identify the victim, other than the bank shareholders that must expend millions of dollars for the proactive compliance required as the state's deputized enforcers.

Moreover, money laundering is guilt by association. If the monetary flows resulting from associated businesses are deemed illegal, then the banking activity is defined as money laundering. But, in the absence of victimless crime laws against drugs, gambling, and prostitution, the majority of banking labeled as money laundering would simply be banking.

According to the International Money Laundering Information Bureau, "Money Laundering is also the world's third-largest industry by value." Apparently, it happens in every country in the world. Well, breathing by humans also happens in every country in the world. If money laundering is actually the third-largest industry in the world then it's either being calculated wrong or it's too easily defined.

In his Rolling Stone article "Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail," Matt Taibbi mocks the anti-money-laundering regime as being hypocritical because large commercial banks like HSBC receive a light slap on the wrist and the blind-eye treatment as smaller fish are routinely scooped up in the net. Taibbi correctly distinguishes between an arrestable class and an unarrestable class. However, he misses the point of the law's arbitrariness in the first place. Thank you for the analysis, Mr. Taibbi, but dispensing enforcement of an immoral law more evenly is not a solution for justice.

Even as the money-laundering laws are said to exist for the fight against terrorism or drugs or gambling, the cashless utopia is simultaneously being thrust upon us as the monetary architecture of the future. Expect ever more increasing thoughtcrime enforcement as the international money flow tightens

Jon Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of nonpolitical digital currencies. His career has included senior posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. Currently, he serves on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @jonmatonis.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(18) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Long Summer of Legal Woes Ahead for Banks

Banking lawyers are working overtime as their employers tangle with prosecutors, regulators and private litigants in lawsuits, settlement talks and regulatory crackdowns. Here is your scorecard of legal fights over a host of issues likely to linger.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (18)
Disingenuous. It is not 'thoughtcrime', it is 'actual crime'. In this case is the deliberate obfuscation of the source of money by channeling through any number of intermediaries, in violation of the laws governing the transfer of stores of value in a given set of circumstances. A law.

The other side of that argument would be Bitcoin (wiki it). Nothing regulated there, therefore no potential crime regardless of the source of the finances. But your example, "It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen vehicle" is not accurate. The metaphor would be more accurate as "It's like verbally assaulting a drive-thru donut employee in a stolen vehicle." Both parts are against the law.
Posted by callmebeerbaron | Tuesday, May 07 2013 at 12:46PM ET
@callmebeerbaron Certainly, society can make anything a crime. My point with the metaphor was that buying the donut would not have been previously against the law, whereas verbally assaulting donut employee has always been against the law.
Posted by Jon Matonis, The Monetary Future | Tuesday, May 07 2013 at 12:54PM ET
Any person or institution knowingly assisting a drug ring in laundering their money should get the same treatment as the people making and selling the drugs. Without the money laundering the drug cartels or whatever would choke on cash. Anything a bank is holding that represents laundered funds should be confiscated just as the cars, houses, drugs, cash and hopefully freedom of the perpetrators. This article sounds like the throw up the hands and give up attitude that is wrecking the country.
Posted by pusch | Tuesday, May 07 2013 at 1:14PM ET
So your contention is that we "made it a crime" for reasons that do no stand up to scrutiny? In our increasingly convoluted international financial system, are you of the opinion that this particular 'thoughtcrime' is irrelevant? If you are within the rules and regulations surrounding your fiscal behavior, you have nothing to worry about. If you are a crack dealer (or an offshore leveraged buyout vulture - this is not about blue collar/white collar) and have to deliberately hide the source of your money because the money itself is evidence of a crime... I fail to see how your story makes a lot of sense. It is a crime, because it absolutely should be a crime.

Although to be fair, in this age of burgeoning crypto-currencies, I could easily support a thesis on the theme of money laundering laws being increasingly worthless. The intent underlying the law, however, remains relevant.
Posted by callmebeerbaron | Tuesday, May 07 2013 at 1:27PM ET
The actual crime is the crime. Are you suggesting that without money, the crime would not exist? What if the gain was sexual favors or some other non-monetary reward? The fact that full financial transparency is nearly in place will be utilized in an aggressive manner by any presiding regime (in any country), quite possibly against political opponents too. You only have to read history to understand that. A free society would not violate financial privacy in that manner precisely because of the massive opportunity for abuse that it opens up.

I support voluntary financial transparency.
Posted by Jon Matonis, The Monetary Future | Tuesday, May 07 2013 at 1:37PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.