Quote from: JollyGood on Today at 08:02:27 AM

One aspect of this whole situation (and in future it would be a huge talking-point) would be the manner in which other than the owner/operator of Chipmixer, zero blame seems to have been put on those that facilitated the money laundering operation.

For example, the hosting company where he used the servers. These servers were used for criminal activity to around $3 billion in money laundering yet no action was taken against them. The question of whether they were responsible in-part even by ignorance is one that can be asked by agencies. In the end they are a hosting company and would not be interested in what was being hosted but legally there might be obligations on them too.

If the servers were based in a country or jurisdiction where there is friction or conflict between them and the US government then the matter would most probably have more emphasis as being backed by various states with nefarious intentions. From what I read on the case, the only person of interest to the law enforcement agencies is the Chipmixer owner.

Gosh.. that sounds scary JollyGood - that you seem to be advocating for even stronger and/or more rigorous and draconian Govt measures, and surely I am not anti-government, but whenever I see these kinds of cases, I become skeptical of the government story - and maybe part of my discomfort comes from their seemingly conflicting mandates of "protecting the public" while at the same time not disclosing too much about a case that is under investigation and/or that the seemingly target person (alleged wrongdoer) is still on the loose.