"Money laundering poses a clear and present threat to citizens, democratic institutions, and the financial system,”

Nice of them to think of us citizens first, although I am not that clear presently on how laundering crypto currencies is a threat to a pensioner.

Mostly, I think it's threatening revenue gathering and the profits of financial institutions who are not getting a look in and therefore a cut.

As with most things cui bono, you must offer offer a few (large) crumbs to the establishment or they will make laws against you.

If for example, the Irish Health Service were unable to function properly due to a ransomware attack, and that ransomware gang were funded by anonymous crypto transfers, then that would be a very major threat to pensioners, and to everyone else in Ireland.

Which is perfectly logical because crypto currencies cannot be transferred internationally.

It's not as if somebody could have a cryptocurrency wallet in, say, Nigeria, that is outside of the EU's juristiction.

Still, it would become far more difficult to make someone in EU pay your ransom to Nigeria.

It's a whack-a-mole. They'll ban cryptocurrencies, the "hackers" will move onto the next best thing. While in reality none of the real problems will be solved. It's a great gravy train for EU bureaucrats though.

They need to ban Western Union and Amazon Vouchers first. Those are far more dangerous to pensioners and the vulnerable.

Not really.

That may well be the case. But the most important thing for banks is access to the international clearing systems: at some point someone is going to want to convert the crypto-currency into something more fungible and that's where licensing plays a roll.

Or indeed just not mention it to anyone. Your wallet contains keys that control unspent inputs on the blockchain. That's all it is. Your crypto exists wherever a copy of the blockchain exists.

An example of the argument:

"This intervention is not a magic silver bullet that will completely and 100% solve every problem, therefore it must be completely useless."

I love the term "due diligence". In practice it essentially means "follow some formal process". In essence, the term "due" means "sufficient", and sufficiency can only be judged by results, not by tick box conformance with a procedure. In several decades of both engieering and business consulting, I've hardly ever seen a "due diligence" process that reliably delivered sufficient results.

It's a farce, or perhaps a tragicomedy.

I moved to Ireland to work there for a while in the early 2000s, and of course had to set up a bank account, for which I had to show my passport and some utility bills with my address on them (to prove I wasn't a money launderer, I guess they don't have utility bills)... for a house which I had arranged to move into but couldn't start renting until I'd got a bank account there that my employer could pay into. Catch-22.

But, there was fortunately a loophole. As my employer was a large organization (a university) the bank would accept a letter from them (their HR department) stating that I worked for them, and confirming my address. The university didn't need to know my address, and I could have given any address, because if they wrote to me it would be by email, or if they really needed snail mail, they would use my pigeonhole in my department.

So HR wrote to the bank, who said that the letter didn't meet the requirements... after three or four attempts at HR getting the right wording, the bank rang them up and dictated the letter they required. Using the arbitrary address I had given them (it was actually the real address where I was going to live, but they never would have noticed if it hadn't been).

Yay for due diligence!

That ordinary citizens should be able to hide their wealth or income - that is a privilege restricted to the very rich and to the powerful.

The main objection of governments to secretive transfers of money is that they may miss out on taxing it.

Money laundering, like tax evasion is effectively theft from tax payers.

Isn't wheeling out a cannon to kill a fly effectively a theft from tax payers too?

If they used the same resources to tackle tax avoidance of big corporations...

An easier solution: do like China, forbid cryptocurrencies.

Ransomware, speculation, pyramid schemes, and wasting energy: cryptocurrencies are not a progress for humanity but a curse

China didn't ban cryptocurrencies. They banned mined cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency mining.

It's a good start. Let's do it too.

A quote on the same, from another source:

Chainalysis research [well...] shows that, in 2020, 2bn USD was laundered across the cryptocurrency markets, while the bitcoin capitalization alone is currently, approaching, 580 bn usd.

"Market capitalisation" is not the same as transaction volume.

Also, the other main use is speculating.

Some people apparently use them to buy pizzas. None of my local pizza shops take bitcoin. I always use Apple Pay to get my pizza supplies.

So majority of money laundering comes from illegal drug trade. Instead of legalising and regulating those markets, they get themselves busy playing whack-a-mole while having a legislative diarrhea.

Yet, they are totally oblivious to giant companies avoiding billions and billions in taxes. Where is regulation for that?

Lets say it all once again - Tax Avoidance is not illegal. Tax evasion is illegal. And when firms cross that line they get hit hard. That's why they pay large sums of money to accountants to go as far up to that line as they can without crossing it.

Should the tax laws be better written to reduce the amount of tax avoidance that goes on, abso-f%&kin-lutely, but is that not just "playing whack-a-mole while having a legislative diarrhea" ?

Illegal drugs are illegal, why shouldnt the governments go after them? If the collective will of a nation decides certain drugs should be made legal (e.g. Marijuana in the Netherlands), then it will happen. But what do you suggest? Make all drugs legal? You really want a world where Ice (Crystal Meth for Americans) is legal and available to everyone? I certainly dont. Should some drugs be made legal and restricted like alcohol and cigarettes, in my opinion yes (Marijuana, and Ecstacy would be my first two legal choices). But I dont think for a minute that would solve all our crime problems.

Tax Avoidance is not illegal

I think everyone knows that, that's not the point. They want everyone to disclose their assets, even though only a fraction get themselves involved in money laundering. Why don't they apply the same principles to companies?

(e.g. Marijuana in the Netherlands)

Not sure why are you using this racist term in 2021. It's called cannabis and it's not legal in Netherlands. It's decriminalised for personal use and the trade in coffee shops is "tolerated", however they don't receive a legal supply as far as I remember. However, medical cannabis is legal in many countries, including UK.

You really want a world where Ice (Crystal Meth for Americans) is legal and available to everyone?

Let me break something out to you - it's already available to everyone. The fact that it is illegal, however, attracts youth looking for quick money and judges are more merciful when sentencing 16 year old selling drugs than let's say 30 year old. Then you have the whole conundrum with dealers trying to cheat on weight and adding whatever they have to make that extra few dollars. Many drug users end up in hospital or dead, not because of the drugs they thought they were ingesting, but what was added to them. Classic example is when dealers mix cheap Fentanyl from China with poor quality heroin. Many many people accidentally overdosed and died because of that.

People should have access to inexpensive and medical grade drugs if they want to. It's part of human nature, and no amount of whinging will change that.

So Europe wants to have a crack at putting the toothpaste back in the tube. Fair enough.

They pass the regulation the rest will follow, micro USB all over again

Just because you want to do something a certain way doesn't mean you will always be allowed too, especially in something emergent where regulations haven't caught up. Crypto is like early motoring, at this point speed limits haven't been created, and a man walks in front with a flag warning people car is coming, the philosophy behind crypto is irrelevant now, real money and plebs are involved, if ransomware is the hammer used to crack the nut so be it, cryptos growing up, time to consign the poster of Che and unread communist manifesto to a box in the loft...

Too many vested interests, too many scams, too much ability to launder (even if that's an over or understated problem), too much potential for aunty Doris to get fleeced..., regulation is inevitable.

if ransomware is the hammer used to crack the nut so be it

When I was hit by ransomware in the early noughties, the text file with instructions how to get my files back stated that I should put a certain amount of cash in a bag and leave it at a location.

By the sound of it, ransomware will be used to remove cash and who knows what else...

We need to keep our doors locked when we leave, organisations should be investing in security. Some, however, prefer to live in a nanny state.

Too much bad press, too much obvious public impact, fact that ransomware had a minor impact on price at pump and access to nominal meat products for the US, and big issues for hospitals in EU and UK means its going to happen

Saying you should lock the door means nothing if its not a crime to steal

The beast is hungry and wants its cut.