In the classic example of money laundering, Charlie the Criminal would take his dirty money to Bob the Banker and get it in some form that is spendable and transferable. In this situation it would be expected that Charlie would know it is dirty money, but Bob the Banker does not need to be specifically aware the the money has criminal origin. Because of this he implements, if he is for example a cryptocurrency exchange, Know Your Customer (KYC) checks and refuses to deal in certain products, Monero in the UK for example.
What if however Bob is not a financial institution but a member of the public (Bob the Builder perhaps)? If he uses a decentralized exchange such as bisq he would be performing much the same actions as Bob the Banker or Cryptocurrency exchange, including exchanging fiat currency for cryptocurrency and trading in Monero. The design of the market makes it impossible to perform any such KYC checks, and at least when exchanging fiat currency makes it clear that there is an covert element in the process (you are informed by the interface not to reference the transfer as "bisq" or "cryptocurrency transaction").
It is possible for an individual to commit the crime that a bank could be found guilty of by having insufficient money laundering prevention measures?
As far as jurisdiction as one never really knows where the other party is located any jurisdiction where this is illegal probably makes it illegal anywhere so the most restrictive rules are probably the most relevant.