Talk:Anti-money laundering

External Links Correction and addition
Global Programme Against Money laundering link gives error "Page requested not found" - so I removed it and adding useful link on AML trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.208.166 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what if a money laundering is protected by a law such as gaming laws ???
My understanding is that money laundering can be legal and illegal. The best examples are those of horse betting, lotteries and casinos which are governed by legal agencies and underground gambling which are considered to be illegal. Therefore, money laundering laws or standards should be established internationally

Not true: Use of a betting establishment to launder funds or finance terrorists is illegal in the US and most other nations. There are international standards, though laws and enforcement are the responsibilities of each nation. --JIMGGGG (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
The contrib made by Amitseeram on 10:24, 7 November 2007 is:
 * a) A long block of text that is unformatted and difficult (imo) to read, and more importantly
 * b) Copied verbatim from the Reserve Bank of India's page RBI AML & KYC Guidelines. The RBI's page is marked © Reserve Bank of India. All Rights Reserved.. Since this extract is over 2,600 words, it can hardly be considered Fair Use and is thus copyright infringement.

Don't include copies of primary sources. I am removing the text. – RossJ81 | Talk 08:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name hyphenation: is it wrong?
'Anti-money laundering' seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't it read Anti money-laundering, or perhaps Anti-money-laundering? From looking at hyphenation and the Manual of Style I'm almost inclined to just make the move, but to which? Does anyone else have a comment, perhaps on what is most common elsewhere? The more I look at it, the less satisfactory the title seems. I'd suggest that 'anti-money-laundering measures' might be a better name still. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With no comments here, I brought this up on the reference desk Reference_desk/Language, and the consensus was that we should follow established usage, which is what the existing title does, so no change is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)