All responsibility for the transaction lies with the sender and the receiver because they know the purpose of the payment. The person who provides your channel in the lease do not have to know the purpose of the payment. When you provide a car in rent you are not responsible for the illegal actions of the driver. Law enforcement agencies need to prove that you are part of the system. By default, you are only a tool.
Is it correct to apply the case of a car rental to something which is already under surveillance by law enforcement agencies around the world, crypto?
we all know that crypto is used by some criminals because of its privacy and untraceability features,
so I would be worried that some Lightning transactions could be deemed as suspicious by those same agencies as per the scenario detailed by the OP.
I wouldnt be so sure that Charlie would be able to proved innocent in the transaction?
It certainly raises an interesting debate.