It's not like money laundering is a victimless crime.
Quite contrary, only money is laundered if it comes from illegal practices, which tend to have victims.
Also, what do you think happens if you relax money laundering regulation?
Quite contrary, only money is laundered if it comes from illegal practices, which tend to have victims.
Also, what do you think happens if you relax money laundering regulation?
Sex slavery? Arguably rationally wrong for all time and space.
Drugs and prostitution? Debatable.
For example, regulating drugs and treating addiction as a medical problem is probably much cheaper than waging an unwinnable drug war PLUS trying to find all the laundered money coming from it PLUS forcing all the "good actors" (non drug industry people) to comply with the regulations at no trivial expense.
This is true for every economy that refuses to go away despite being wholly illegal. In those cases it is (IMHO) best to just regulate it... Same as what happened with alcohol after Prohibition. Nobody's making moonshine and killing bootlegger opponents anymore, and alcoholism is a manageable medical problem.
Certain laws are truly silly, however. I am allowed to maintain that opinion. I may also be anti-authoritarian in general, and do not believe in the vast majority of consensual crimes.
I'd presume there is a deterrent as well as a direct effect on reducing money laundering; I'd expect to see more money laundering if there were no checks.
Quite how it would be measured is another question.