>Meanwhile physical cash is preferred for criminal acts. Would you similarly blame the issuer of cash for these crimes? Authorities (at least in the US) try to

>Meanwhile physical cash is preferred for criminal acts. Would you similarly blame the issuer of cash for these crimes? Authorities (at least in the US) try to strike a balance between crime prevention and seamless use of cash. Depositing or withdrawing large sums in cash will attract regulatory attention. Currency entering the banking system is checked against a list of serial numbers known to have been used in or obtained through criminal activity. Crossing borders with large sums of cash requires a customs declaration. When cash denominations or cash-like instruments are shown to primarily enable criminal activity, their issue is discontinued (hence why we no longer have $1K bills or bearer bonds). > What about footwear? Most criminals wear shoes or boots. Running shoes can be used to evade capture. Should we hold Nike accountable? I mean, if there were some kind of shoe that primarily or uniquely enabled criminal activity, I'm pretty sure it would get banned? Or Nike would get pressured into no longer making them.