Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.
But the woman who ordered the videotapes of US torture sessions erased was appointed head of CIA, instead of being prosecuted. Meanwhile, the whistleblower Jeffrey Skilling was charged with mishandling information that was only classified after he last touched it.
Of course and that's a very understandable thing. Legibility and transparency are the basis of prosecuting almost any crime. it's why companies are forced to keep records and do accounting, why there's limits on anonimity and so on. That didn't go over my head at all, it's perfectly reasonable. Tools that exist almost exclusively to facilitate criminal activity and render impossible the capacity of the state to detect such activity are 'inherently pretty bad'. Imagine if someone tried to sell a vehicle that's invisible and that would stop border security from doing its job. Pretty unpopular I'd bet.
Are you also surprised that forgery is a crime despite the fact that harm is usually done when that forgery is used? What is this, the "guns don't kill people" of bookkeeping?
A person laundering is an accessory to other crimes.
That said, when I hear "money laundering", I exclusively interpret this as the act of whitewashing money aquired by illegal means (e.g. drug sales, extortion, fencing stolen goods etc.) in order to make it appear legitimate. In that regard, there is nothing that is not bad about money laundering (IMHO).
Of course you could argue that it should be possible to hide the source of your money or even the money itself from the government, but as a consequence, you would have to accept that at the very least, your country would have no longer any means to fight crime.
Conflating having one less specific statute to prosecute people for violating with "no longer having any means to fight crime" brings to mind a famous Churchill quote about the electorate.