>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, reject wrote:
>
>> Obviously, assorted FedGoons(tm) dislike untraceable money. Nasty
>> terrorists, child pornographers, drug dealers, and other horsemen could
>> hide their "profits" then...
>>
>> But is there a *legitimate* reason to have anti-money-laundering laws? I
>> can't think of any, but perhaps I'm being naive.
>
>This begs the question. Poor logic.
No, poor phrasing--at least as I understand the question,
reject seems to be asking whether there is any reason to make laws
preventing the obfuscation of financial transactions illegal absent
the *source* of the money being illegal.
In other words, does the government have a legitimate reason
to prevent you or me from hiding the origin of a legitimate source of
income from prying eyes.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
