Money laundering finds many avenues. Money gained from illicit activities by terrorists, drug lords, arms dealers and other criminals is washed through car sales, yacht purchases, jewelry and art acquisitions, and deposits in banks that -- wink, wink -- look the other way, even in sports betting.

But perhaps nowhere is this criminal enterprise more prominent than in real estate, both residential and commercial.

A new report from Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank that studies the flow of illicit finances, says America has become a "safe haven" for money laundering. The group says that "at a minimum," $2.3 billion has been laundered through real estate over the last five years. And given that GFI only studied cases already reported or adjudicated, it ventured that the total value of property purchased with laundered money is even more "staggering."

That's one reason why President Joe Biden issued a National Security Study Memorandum in early summer that established countering corruption as a core national security interest. Among other things, he said his administration will lead efforts to "make it increasingly difficult for corrupt actors to shield their activities."

Biden aims to "significantly bolster" the government's ability to combat corruption, including all forms of illicit finance, and to "hold accountable" individuals, transnational criminal organizations and their facilitators. He would freeze and recover stolen assets and, where possible, return those assets to citizens who were harmed by scams.

The president also is urging the Treasury Department to revoke the regulatory exemption for real estate agents, who are not currently required to identify their ultimate clients or to report suspicious activity. The U.S. is the only major economic member of the G7 that does not impose anti-money laundering rules on real estate professionals.

Banks must report suspicious activity, and in certain cities, title insurance companies are required to identify the persons behind shell companies buying houses for $300,000 or more with cash or virtual currency. But not realty agents.

If necessary, the president says he will propose legislation to modernize, coordinate and otherwise improve the fed's ability to prevent money laundering.

A review of the Biden memorandum by attorneys at O'Melveny, a worldwide law firm based in Los Angeles, says the top-down directive should result in an increase in enforcement actions that will "put considerable burdens" on market players.

"Where the Justice Department finds evidence of misconduct," the lawyers wrote in a recent newsletter, "companies should also expect to see an increase in the number and scope of monitorships imposed, the prevalence of which had nose-dived during the last administration."

The changes can't come soon enough for GFI President Tom Cardamone. "It is clear that despite their best efforts, the U.S. government's attempt to address money laundering -- particularly the use of real estate -- has fallen short of what is required to address this growing problem," he says.

The GFI report says real estate money laundering isn't confined to big gateway cities where luxury property markets are concentrated. Rather, it also occurs in Alaskan cities, Boston's suburbs and Midwestern manufacturing towns.

And while anonymous shell companies and complex corporate structures remain the most popular schemes, a "broad array" of gatekeepers such as attorneys, realty agents and title agents enable the perpetrators, "either through willful blindness or direct complicity," GFI reports.

Complicity was the case in Illinois recently, where a licensed real estate broker used structured cash deposits from a suspected drug trafficker to purchase residential properties. He used his own name to conceal the true buyer, and submitted fictitious proof-of-funds letters during settlement. He earned thousands in commissions -- and also 14 months in prison.

GFI analyzed 125 cases reported between 2015-2020 in the United States, Canada and Great Britain for its report, concluding that the current approach in this country -- using geographic targeting -- is "inadequate to address" money laundering in the real estate sector. In 60% of the cases, the property involved was outside targeted counties.

Of the 56 U.S. cases covered in "Acres of Money Laundering: Why U.S. Real Estate is a Kleptocrat's Dream," 82% involved money from abroad. And numerous cases involved "politically exposed persons" who "plundered, looted and laundered the assets of their home countries."

For example, millions have been laundered by various Russians, the Kolomoisky family from Ukraine, the Maduro regime in Venezuela and Teodoro Obiang from Equatorial Guinea. In one instance, $100 million embezzled from Kuwait's Department of Defense was used to buy a 157-acre Beverly Hills property known as "The Mountain."

Residential properties accounted for the bulk of the identified cases, but the values of the commercial properties were "markedly higher," the report found. Some of the income-producing properties identified included office parks, hotels, a mental health facility, supermarkets and condominium developments. One enterprising drug trafficker bought a wind turbine.

And yet, at this time, commercial real estate is not subject to any reporting requirements.

A little-known but highly effective legal group is working on drafting model legislation that would help property owners remove discriminatory, restrictive covenants from their deeds.

Deeds often contain all kinds of restrictions, especially in association-run communities. They might cover building height limitation, lease restrictions and even what color you can paint your house. But the Chicago-based Uniform Law Commission's initiative is aimed squarely at racial discrimination.

Even though the Supreme Court struck down racially based covenants almost 75 years ago -- and Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, outlawing discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity in the sale or rental of housing, in 1968 -- racially motivated restrictive covenants can still be found in real estate titles practically everywhere.

Seattle, for example, is rife with racial deed restrictions. "The language of segregation still haunts Seattle," a local civil rights group reports. "It lurks in the deeds of tens of thousands of homeowners living in neighborhoods outside of the Central Area and the International District."

The Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project has found racially restrictive covenants attached to more than 15,000 properties in the region. Here's a sample of what some say:

-- "No person or persons of Asiatic, African or Negro blood, lineage or extraction shall be permitted to occupy a portion of said property."

-- "The lot, nor any part thereof, shall not be sold to any person either of whole or part blood of the Mongolian, Malay or Ethiopian races, nor shall the same nor any part thereof be rented to persons of such races."

-- "No person of any race other than the white race shall use or occupy any building or any lot, except this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant."

Similar language has been well documented in St. Louis, Missouri; Chicago; Hartford, Connecticut; Kansas City, Missouri; Baltimore; and Washington, D.C. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve has found more than 4,000 instances of racial covenants in deeds in the City of Brotherly Love. And in Chicago, racially motivated covenants "are enshrined in the deeds of properties" in neighborhoods throughout the city, according to a Lake Forest College report.

In the San Francisco Bay area, a newspaper ad once proclaimed that "No negroes, no Chinese, no Japanese can build or lease" in Rockridge Park. (Note that the word "Negroes" was not even worthy of a capital N.) In Minneapolis, one deed said that neither the land nor buildings on it "shall never be rented, leased or sold, transferred on conveyed to, nor shall be occupied exclusively by person or persons other than of the Caucasian Race."

Restrictions weren't limited to preventing people of color from buying property in certain communities, either. Sometimes they were based on a person's religion -- banning Jews, for example, from living in certain places.

Such restraints came into vogue with a Supreme Court decision in 1926 that validated their use. The restrictions were part of an enforceable contract, and an owner who violated them risked forfeiting the property.

Today, even though they are no longer enforceable, these words still linger on paper -- and many buyers and sellers find that loathsome.

The Uniform Law Commission is now taking action to address this.

The 130-year-old ULC "provides states with nonpartisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law," the group's website states. The commission is made up of more than 300 lawyers, judges and law professors, each appointed by their respective states to "research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical."

The nonprofit recently authorized the appointment of a new drafting committee to develop a law that would, in states that adopt it, allow now-illegal covenants in a property's title to be expunged or released from the records.

No timetable has been set, and the steps involved seem somewhat cumbersome. For example, tentative drafts cannot be submitted to the entire commission "until they receive extensive consideration." However, over its history, the organization has promulgated more than 200 acts, including the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Probate Code and the Uniform Partnership Act.

Meanwhile, some states are moving forward on their own. Washington has had a law on its books for almost two years that allows owners to submit documentation to strike discriminatory language from the records. But the law does not delete the public record, the Seattle civil rights group reports.

Last year, Florida passed legislation that extinguishes discriminatory restrictions from deeds and other real estate documents. In Indiana, legislation is in progress that would permit owners to attach a notice rejecting any such covenants as discriminatory, invalid and unenforceable. And in Orange County, California, buyers who need to record property documents with the county can have any discriminatory language expunged for free.

Going one step further, Orange County officials are now required to notify the district attorney if anyone attempts to record such covenants.

Sellers whose listings do not include virtual tours, professional photographs and floor plans are being cheated by their real estate agents.

Not "cheated" as in being ripped off, but in the sense that, without the proper visuals, homes will likely take longer to sell and fetch a lower price.

That's according to a recent study by BoxBrownie, a listings enhancement company based in Australia. The study found that, of the 25,000 properties for sale on two major U.S. listings websites, 94% lacked an immersive, 360-degree online tour of the house. Less than 30% of listings appeared to use photos taken by a pro, or that at least followed photographic best practices. And only 10% contained floor plans.

Altogether, only 1.5% of all the listings studied had all three of what BoxBrownie calls these "essential elements." Yet research from the National Association of Realtors indicates that 89% of all purchasers, regardless of age, want to see photos; 67% want to view floor plans; and 58% want to take a virtual look-see.

The BoxBrownie study does not say so directly, but it implies that without these techniques, would-be buyers are likely to move on to the next listing until they find one that offers the information they are seeking.

Another study, this one by Chicago-based real estate photography network VHT Studios, found that agents who used professional photos sold their listings 32% faster than those who didn't. And that was seven years ago, before buyers relied so heavily on visuals to decide which houses to visit in person.

NAR surveys show that buyers want to see five items when they view a listing: photos, written descriptions with essential details, a floor plan, a video tour and additional videos. Visit almost any builder's website and you'll find all of those elements in spades. They may have to use renderings instead of photos in the early stages of construction, but even at that, builders are marketing experts.

Real estate agents, as it turns out, are not so accomplished. The listings BoxBrownie studied were woefully lacking in three key features:

-- Immersive video tours. This is defined as a 360-degree, 3D virtual tour, and only 6% of the listings featured one. Photo-based slideshows, while certainly better than nothing, did not count as full-blown video tours in the company's survey.

Virtual tours came into vogue during the pandemic, when buyers feared visiting properties for sale (at least initially). Sellers shunned personal visits, too: They didn't know who might be sick or contagious, and didn't want to take the chance.

These virtual tours are still important. Buyers can take these tours anytime, anywhere on their computers, tablets or phones to help them weed out the houses they don't fancy and select the ones they do.

NAR recently reported that 35% of its agent-members rely on video tours to sell homes, but the BoxBrownie study refutes that figure as way overblown. And "despite the hype" surrounding virtual visits, its report says their prevalence does not appear to be advancing very quickly.

-- Floor plans. The study found that just 17% of all listings showed a floor plan, which helps people visualize how the house flows from one room to another.

Here, even landlords do a better job than agents. BoxBrownie found that only 14% of listings for single-family properties contained a floor plan, compared with 38% of those for apartments and condominiums.

-- Quality photos. When it comes to still pictures, agents do better, yet only 30% featured what the report calls "best practice" photography. One reason is that some agents use their smart devices to take pictures rather than hiring a pro -- or at least using a better camera.

BoxBrownie found a 76% probability nationally that the agent is paying a photographer. But even at that, "professional photography across the country really should be better," the report says.

It's doubtful most sellers want to pay the extra cost for a pro to take pictures of their house, no matter how important it is. But the study says the difference between the photos shot by some amateur photographers and those taken by pros who follow the best practices protocol is visibly apparent.

By "best practices photography," the company means using globally recognized techniques to best represent a property for sale. Without this, it says, it is "nearly impossible" for an image to show what the human eye truly sees.

Agents can fill the void, though, by hiring BoxBrownie. For $1.60 per photo -- "not expensive at all," General Manager Peter Schravemade told me on a Zoom call from Queensland -- the company can merge five pictures into one image that reflects what the eye takes in.

By the way, the listings his company studied often contained 30 to 60 pictures. And while agents are permitted to post an unlimited number on most multiple listing services, Schravemade says the ideal number is between 20 and 25. Any more than that, and visitors start looking elsewhere.