I'll try to give you a line for those devs: If the developers are running for a UI that helps, or paying for a UI that helps, or paying to run services that he

I'll try to give you a line for those devs: If the developers are running for a UI that helps, or paying for a UI that helps, or paying to run services that help get the money out, then i would say they may be on the hook for charges. These all have to be knowing, btw. If you just donate somewhere and they do something bad with it, not your issue. If you donate somewhere, knowing they will do something bad with it, that's different :) You are correct that charging money or not doesn't really matter, it just gets used to show they profited from the illegal enterprise overall. As for further lines, if all they did was write some Ethereum contracts and let them loose, I doubt someone would come after them. If they are making it easy by building UI/services around it, without any KYC/AML, and then the UI/services get used to launder money, then yes, they are likely on the hook. I also doubt the government wants to start a case about interaction with smart contracts - it would be very muddy and possibly set bad precedent, at least right now. They would rather take cases like the one you see here, where someone did something more than make an ethereum contract, and the facts don't look great, and prosecute those. Maybe sometime later if they win a bunch like this they will go after more complex cases around smart contracts, but you generally want to ease courts into this sort of thing if you want the best chances. It's not always possible, mind you. If you look at early decisions in new fields where someone threw a really complex and hairy technology case at a court, the decisions are sometimes weird/strange. The courts do their best (and often hire special masters with expertise in the area and ....), but the legal system is a deliberately iterative one, and often takes iterations over years to get things to a stable point.