I wasn't trying to write a fully formed political dissertation, so I'm not really sure what you were expecting in response to this comment? My point was that the GP was describing their behavior as "indistinguishable from money laundering", because it technically is a form of money laundering (the act) even if it's not money laundering (the crime). Intent is what turns the act into a crime, specifically in the case of money laundering.
It's not illegal to buy a few beers every evening from a bar you own out of your own pocket, and then book that revenue, pay taxes on it, and then ultimately collect a distribution of the profits as the owner of the business. It is illegal to do the same thing if the money you took out of your pocket came from selling drugs.
For example, we feel like it is fair for credit card companies to monopolize payment systems, charge fees to businesses, and use a portion of the money from this scheme to set up this bullshit reward point system.
But to undermine this system is criminal, because the system is established, but undermining it is novel and therefore disallowed. Any new way to play the game is breaking the rules, because the purpose of the system is what it does.