They don't deliberately run a service explicitly built to enable money laundering.
Basic things you can think about if you try really.
It'd be more akin to if you had say McDonalds and people used your parking lot for Craigslist transactions (some of which were fradualent). Should you be required to close that McDonalds?
But if it really were happening at any kind of volume, it's obvious that Spotify would be quite willing to make their KYC requirements for artists stricter. Any payments they'd made would obviously be made through the banking system, and the law enforcement would be able to trace them to the next hop, which again would have done their KYC due diligence.
The crypto mixer, on the other hand, has no real use case except money laundering. They are also obviously unwilling to do any KYC, and unable to manage their system in a way that would prevent it from being used for money laundering. And it wasn't by accident. It was fully intentional and by design.
Is that true though? What if I am in a country which disapproves of $activity that is legal in most of the world but not in my country. I might simply want anonymity in my Bitcoin transactions.
The only service being run is a web client and relayers to permissionless smart contracts. I believe these are/were being run by a foundation.
Also some things you can discover if you try, really.
I would accept that operating such a system is indefensible.
But it's not as if the creator of Tornado Cash was solely maintaining servers that made this possible. Everyone running an Ethereum node (even if they aren't mining) is running the infrastructure that Tornado Cash runs on.
So why is the guy who quite brilliantly conceived and executed this idea being punished like this?
They didn't build a service because it's "just" a web client and relayers is an interesting take but sadly, very stupid.
