Sure. And I would have no problem with that. Probably neither would the law.
But if you want to use a mixer to increase your privacy, then you are sophisticated enough to realize that you're an active participant in other people's moneylaundering.
The analogy with the jar would be more complete if you know that one of the people putting money into the jar happens to put in fresh sequentially numbered bills. A reasonable person can easily deduce that they are therefore becoming part of a criminal act.
If a friend of yours asked to mix their pile of money with yours, because theirs is all sequentially numbered, would you do it? Would you admit that you're probably helping them commit a crime, if you do?
Legal commentators on SBF have said that part of the reason his defense was weak is that even if he didn't know about the fraud, it was so blatantly obvious that fraud was happening and he continued taking further actions enabling the fraud, that would make him legally liable for the fraud even if that story is true.
But if you want to use a mixer to increase your privacy, then you are sophisticated enough to realize that you're an active participant in other people's moneylaundering.
The analogy with the jar would be more complete if you know that one of the people putting money into the jar happens to put in fresh sequentially numbered bills. A reasonable person can easily deduce that they are therefore becoming part of a criminal act.
If a friend of yours asked to mix their pile of money with yours, because theirs is all sequentially numbered, would you do it? Would you admit that you're probably helping them commit a crime, if you do?
Legal commentators on SBF have said that part of the reason his defense was weak is that even if he didn't know about the fraud, it was so blatantly obvious that fraud was happening and he continued taking further actions enabling the fraud, that would make him legally liable for the fraud even if that story is true.