![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "laundered money" the right phrase? If we don't know the source of the money how can we say it is laundered (which has a illegal connotations). There can be other reasons to hide the source. -- Noah ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - laundered is definitely the incorrect phrase here, especially without a citation. 38.105.200.252 ( talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If this was done to avoid taxes or regulations then it would indeed be laundering; other motives for this subterfuge are not apparent, so "possible laundering activity" would be accurate based on what we know at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.85.29 ( talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That would be speculation and (potentially) biased. I'd say either leave it off or indicated it is source unknown. -- Noah ( talk) 16:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Money laundering, at its simplest, is the act of making money that comes from Source A look like it comes from Source B." [1] So yes, this is money laundering. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
From the Wiki-definition - yes I saw that. But looking online for other definitions ( here for example) it is only defined for when it is used to make illegal gains appear legal. Same for a Texas state definition on another site. -- Noah ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to revise the article so that it covers the general phenomenon of creating phantom companies to launder money (especially to political candidates?)
There are currently at least three such incidents - the one in this article, and two as described here: [2] 68.42.243.198 ( talk) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "laundered money" the right phrase? If we don't know the source of the money how can we say it is laundered (which has a illegal connotations). There can be other reasons to hide the source. -- Noah ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - laundered is definitely the incorrect phrase here, especially without a citation. 38.105.200.252 ( talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If this was done to avoid taxes or regulations then it would indeed be laundering; other motives for this subterfuge are not apparent, so "possible laundering activity" would be accurate based on what we know at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.85.29 ( talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That would be speculation and (potentially) biased. I'd say either leave it off or indicated it is source unknown. -- Noah ( talk) 16:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Money laundering, at its simplest, is the act of making money that comes from Source A look like it comes from Source B." [1] So yes, this is money laundering. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
From the Wiki-definition - yes I saw that. But looking online for other definitions ( here for example) it is only defined for when it is used to make illegal gains appear legal. Same for a Texas state definition on another site. -- Noah ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to revise the article so that it covers the general phenomenon of creating phantom companies to launder money (especially to political candidates?)
There are currently at least three such incidents - the one in this article, and two as described here: [2] 68.42.243.198 ( talk) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)