I think this is also an argument with potential (at least when presented as here, i.e. without excessive reference to WannaCry), but I think you need to either

I think this is also an argument with potential (at least when presented as here, i.e. without excessive reference to WannaCry), but I think you need to either have a decent amount of affirmative evidence against him having sold Kronos or to wait at least several days before using the DOJ's absence of presented evidence as evidence of absence. W.r.t. the latter, I'm not saying that the DOJ should have had him arrested if it lacks serious evidence of his guilt. I'm saying that his arrest has happened; it's too late to stop it. The question is whether it should have happened, and, since we're highly unlikely to be able to change anything within a few days, it seems like it makes sense to wait a few days before asserting that the DOJ lacked evidence to support the arrest if only to avoid poising the well. If it turns out that they didn't have any evidence, then the arrest was a problem which needs to have consequences. But I think being over-eager at this point greatly lowers the probability of there being any such consequences.