Its really interesting because the article describes this as yet another case where the defendant moved to conceal their trades after the fact

When crypto used in specific ways can conceal your trades before the fact which alone wouldn't be a crime because obfuscating funds of legal origin is not a crime, while properly obfuscating funds of illicit origin would never be attributed to a person, as such the crime of money laundering can only ever be a tacked on crime to help increase the gravity of a sentence.

Otherwise the feds would have to immediately subpoena the oracle’s source for who had access upon resolution of every market, which would be a phenomenal waste of taxpayer resources, and even then not be able to prove someone traded if they had pre-obfuscated funds long in advance.

Anyone that keeps a balance of Monero is already in a good place, just pop on Tor and fund a virgin polygon address at that point in time

I hardly see a reason to have any clear addresses that werent initially funded by a treasury of Monero, swapped atomically or on a service triggered by a deposit of monero that spits out an equivalent on another chain

From all state actions I’ve seen for a decade straight in the crypto space, this largely seems to be an education issue that makes the state’s ability to prosecute a brief privilege