Pablo Escobar was making billions, but had to bury them in ground to rot, because he couldn't move them into assets efficiently.
> Pablo Escobar was making billions, but had to bury them in ground to rot, because he couldn't move them into assets efficiently.
Doesn't that highlight the ultimate pointlessness of anti-laundering laws? Despite Esboar's inability to store his assets in a bank, his activities weren't actually stopped.
What benefit do the laws actively provide?
Just like a government can distort a market through intervention, so can cartels distort a government through corruption. Unlike gang members, most operatives in a government or political campaign need tons of clean money for ad spending, transportation, and paying for venues, campaigners, etc. Most of the individuals and businesses involved will not take dirty money for liability reasons (at least in the US).
The purpose is to prevent some of the most violent organizations from getting a foothold in politics that makes their underlying activities even harder to stop.