In the eyes of the law, Bitcoin itself is already money laundering...plain and simple.
Except that's not true. It
can be
used for money laundering once the fiat is in the equation.
The trader problem is a chicken and egg problem. Ultimately the more people who accept BTC as payment, the more the problem goes away. Until then we still need exchanges. But to get to this ideal point in the future, we need to focus on the traders, and keep the exchanges from being shut down.
On the contrary, proposing an overt money laundering scheme strikes me as bait for the authorities. and could bring more harm than good. For all intents and purposes, it moves your
aim from "Want to buy and use digital currency" to "Want to launder money". And if that's your aim, a public forum is probably not the wisest place to set that kind of thing up.
And this is why it is a de facto money laundering tool as far as the government is concerned. The key word is "can". Think of these scenarios:
Me and you meet in some dark alleyway. I have 10 million dollars I need "laundering". You have the equivalent in Bitcoin. Commodities exchange hands
-or-
Me and you meet on some public internet marketplace for the world to see. I just spent 10 million dollars on some classic work of art (you could say I "laundered" my fiat with it). You have the equivalent value in Bitcoin. Commodities exchange hands.
Is there a substantive difference between these two scenarios? In my eyes, no, and neither to the eyes of the US government. There's no need for wishful thinking. Bitcoin will never be accepted by the status quo (at least in its present state. They could always co-opt it and produce some bastardization, e.g. Ripple).