Because they didn't launder money for anyone. They wrote open source code that facilitated privacy on bitcoin, and then loudly speculated that it could be used for money laundering. They might be slimy, but even if they are the precedent that writing code to facilitate private transactions constitutes money laundering is exremely dangerous. The US has a common law system, so precedent becomes law.

Replies (4)

When your customer service department, tell someone yes indeed we can clean your Bitcoin for you. That’s not decentralized. That’s not just code especially when you charge more for the transactions. I’m assuming you haven’t read the indictment.
There is an entire list in the indictment of what went through and they knew it
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.