> The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal act

> The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal actors on the platform, and (2) took specific steps to actively counsel specific customers involved in illicit activity on steps to evade detection of that activity. Let's not conflate events here. They did know about some patterns of criminal activity. Its not stated, as far as I know, that they actively aided/coached these people on how to evade anything. They also knew about the use of their platform by e.g. HFT companies based in the US who accessed it via shell company. They appear to have, to a limited extent, coached this group on what to do. This behavior is the primary substance of the CFTC's suit, not the criminal/terrorist/ransomware behavior. It's important that these things not be mixed up. The latter is utterly trivial, protects nobody, and it is the real substance of the lawsuit. The allegations of aiding and abetting crime are not the substance of the lawsuit, presumably because there is no significant evidence of it occurring.