The evolution of that term, money laundering, is great example of a term that was redefined (maybe intentionally? Where's my tinfoil hat?) to lead to collateral damage.

The way it was understood when I grew up, was taking cash obtained through crimes (theft, blackmail, dealing in illegal/sanctioned goods, etc) then run it through a legitimate cash-based front to end up with money that has no trace of its illegal origin. And that was it.

Somewhere in the more recent past, a redefinition took place: money of which the origin is obscured, for whichever reason, must have been sourced illegally unless you can prove it was obtained legally.

Essentially, this followed the pattern I've seen applied in multiple other areas since the late 90s: The assumption of innocence until proven guilty has been turned on its head.

Now we often run into ridiculous situations at banks where they require proof of origin for funds. Or else. That in particular ground my gears as a vanilla, law-abiding, always above-board, quasi-npc citizen. In fact, that is one of my primary motivations for why I try so hard to reduce my use of fiat for anything.

Because eff them for insinuating I'm doing something illegal.

Woops. Got a bit sidetracked. Rant over. Felt cathartic though, not gonna lie.