I have not read the indictment, nor am I am attorney. I also did not use the product. My understanding was that they wrote a protocol that allowed people to coordinate coin joins without their input or knowledge, and loudly boasted that it could be used for money laundering, and that no one could stop it. That is inconsistent with charging more for money laundering services, or at least independent of it. If they took custody of customer funds for the explicit purpose of launder them, in exchange for a fee, then I am badly misinformed, and concede your point. At least on that charge, although I still think it is a dangerous precedent if they are also charged and convicted because of the code that the wrote.