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. 

 It’s unfortunate, but it is what they did. I know everybody’s gut reaction is to say they did nothing wrong but if you read it, they knew what they were doing. They skirted the law and it’s just not something anyone’s gonna get away with especially $1 billion worth. 

 Skirting the law is actually not a crime.

Shouldn't even need to be said but here we are. 

 That’s not squirting the law that’s breaking the law. It’s called intent 

 It may not be in the Netherlands, but it is here or they wouldn’t be charging them 

 AFAIK, this is where you are wrong.
They are charging them because they think they can win and set precedent.  

 ....however,

I do agree with your point that it's not a wise course of action to poke the bear and publicly acknowledge doing so.

It's just not illegal.
and I don't think its unethical either. 

 I am personally upset that this is the precident  that is going to be used