I think we can distinguish between a technical and a colloquial use of the term "money laundering". Yes, colloquial usage would annoy people who have to deal with the technical definition, but I think instead of trying to dispute the colloquial usage, which isn't focused on the IRS, a better way for people to address it is that "it's not technically 'money laundering' in the eyes of the law, but should be referred to as 'xyz'" (whatever xyz term that describe it better). The way I was colloquial using it, was a way to get cash out of people's stolen credit cards in a way that would be difficult to track back to the thief.
some argue above that there's no fraud involved, it is people simply doing manufactured spend, that makes little sense to me, as there are cheaper and simpler ways of doing manufactured spend (I've done it!). Heck, just buy the gift cards direct from amazon.
That sounds reasonable enough, although I do question somewhat what the value of using it colloquially is, since it confuses the legality of it and, at least in my experience (which may be atypical), when people mention money laundering, its in the context of whether transactions or actions are legal or not. Although I have heard someone mention (once!) "legal money laundering", by which they really meant tax avoidance -- that is, moving money around in such a way as to minimize their tax liability. So maybe you're right about that! You're definitely right about how to address it, at least then people can correct it if they wish then.
> Heck, just buy the gift cards direct from amazon.
Indeed, unless you're out to commit fraud or legal-definition-money-laundering, there seems little point in jumping through the hoops.
some argue above that there's no fraud involved, it is people simply doing manufactured spend, that makes little sense to me, as there are cheaper and simpler ways of doing manufactured spend (I've done it!). Heck, just buy the gift cards direct from amazon.