Yes. The crime in question is the human trafficking. Pursue and prosecute
that.
If you go by the economic definitions of money, which generally include uniformity and fungibility, money laundering is really a whinge from law enforcement that police work is difficult, and can't they please go after someone who may be less dangerous and less guilty, but is much easier to catch?
You can't reasonably expect people to investigate the full history of all money they receive as payments. Merchants have the right to presume that their customers are innocent in the absence of blatantly obvious evidence to the contrary.
As they say, gold has no smell. A coin that was obtained by murdering its former owner cannot carry residual guilt from the crime. Once it is used to buy a sack of oranges at market price, it is indistinguishable from a coin that was mined and refined by devout monks, repeatedly donated to charity, sequentially blessed by all the religious figures at that bar where all the jokes happen when they walk into it, and then spent on a sack of grapefruits.
If you buy a house with 50% legit income, and 50% black market contraband profits, you don't seize half the house and claw the other half back from the previous owner. The proceeds of criminal activity attach to the criminal, not to the property. The money has no soul or conscience. It is innocent whenever the person who carries it is.
And money laundering is not a crime, in my opinion, because in order for it to be a crime, certain inaccurate assumptions about money have to be true--namely that money is not uniform and fungible. It artificially makes money from a marijuana dispensary business different from money from a pharmacy. Cash should be cash, agnostic of the sins of its bearer.