I feel compelled to address the money laundering issue here, but suddenly realize that, while your statements regarding licensing are canon per license issuers, they are utterly vacuous.
Please do not mistake my dismissal of the canon as in any way reflective on you personally, but as an indictment of a system that is dependent on exactly the things you have stated as reasons for licensing.
Not so long ago (okay, probably a long time ago) Warren Buffet remarked that he, and his wealthy ilk, paid less taxes than the average wage earner, because he could afford competent tax preparation services.
Anyone that does not know that all the proceeds of black markets are laundered by banks simply doesn't grasp the concept.
As to other laws, I will leave that to independent researchers, like George Webb Sweigert, who seems to have considerable evidence of most of them being violated routinely, by the most trusted organizations extant.
Trusted, at least, by the financial system itself.
I, at last, must be left with only one reason to support licensing, and that is to limit the size of the market, to protect margins.
I absolutely agree with you that people should take care when conducting business, and particularly when doing so with other people's assets. It's just the right thing to do, after all.
However, when it comes to my money, I reckon the only hand on it besides mine I will trust, is God's.
Thanks!