There's no section 230 for money laundering. If you want safe harbor from the crimes of your customers, you need to lobby for explicit protection in the law.

There's no section 230 for money laundering. If you want safe harbor from the crimes of your customers, you need to lobby for explicit protection in the law. In this case, there actually are safe harbor laws in place that protect banks from being prosecuted in exactly this way as long as they correctly implement KYC/AML protocols. Tornado didn't feel they wanted to do this, so quite deliberately and publicly flaunted the law that would have protected them. And this is what happens. What's the "precedent" being set exactly here? Follow the law like your competitors do and you won't get fingered as an accomplice?