Now back to the indictment...
(I might get some sleep first though) 
Discussion
At least up to point 31 it provides a solid explanation of the whole system, which matches my understanding of it. Worth reading. 
Or you can listen to nostr:npub1art8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqhpm0w5 and me explain it last year: https://podcast.sprovoost.nl/@nado/episodes/bitcoin-explained-69-the-tornado-cash-trial
I physically visited the first couple of hearings in The Netherlands. But the Dutch prosecutor is less transparent than the Americans. All we had until today were (fairly high level) oral arguments made in court.
I assume they've collaborated in making the case (or even copy pasted stuff). But it's also possible they're both making completely different arguments.
And the biggest question: will Pertsev (CC-1) get the 'best' deal of all with just a few years in Dutch prison (if he's convicted at all), or the worst - by doing that and then, only after being release, suddenly getting extradited at the request of an extra vindictive US prosecutor?
But anyway, continuing to read... what's the charge?
They're facing up to 45 years in the US, I'd be shocked if it's more than 5 over here. I think the max is 8: https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/beleidsregels/richtlijnen-voor-strafvordering-resultaten/richtlijn-voor-strafvordering-witwassen-2021r004
The plot thickens, but it seems to hone in on the centralized parts of the system - as opposed to the core contract. 
They're going for the "profit from tokenomics" angle it seems... Remember that's very indirect: relay operators buy tokens in order to get priority from UI users (this can be bypassed with some technical skill, certainly by the North Koreans), which drives up the price. More realistically, and what probably ACTUALLY happened, is that degens pushed up the price. So the profits came from gambling, not laundering. But maybe that's why they're only charged with conspiracy.
Reading on... 
Yes they could have. And then someone would clone the UI code and remove the KYC stuff. So it's a non-starter. It's misleading of both the Dutch and US prosecutor to pretend otherwise. 
What is it with people and self-incriminating (appearing) text messages ffs.
THE FBI CAN READ ANYTHING YOU EVER ENTERED ON ANY FUCKING KEYBOARD - or least you should live accordingly. Like how a gun is always loaded even if you just checked and saw it wasn't loaded 
Anyway, very hand-wavy argument from the prosecutor.
Ya'll better crowdfund them good lawyers. Because the same reasoning can be used against, say, a non-custodial phone wallet that doesn't have KYC.
Because the attorney in question was a moron. Tornado Cash is non-custodial and does not have possession. And there was nothing they could do. 
Or they're really playing the same dirty trick as the Dutch prosecutor. First they pretend adding KYC to the UI would have been effective. Full well knowing that's false. Then, when it suits them, they suddenly argue it would NOT be effective.
The paper over this glaring contradiction with the red underlined nonsense. None of those things would have stopped the transactions. The developers understood this, so they didn't act. The prosecutor understands this too but hopes the jury doesn't. Or in the case of the Dutch system - where judges are way less educated on the topic and there's isn't a single attorney who can teach them - the judge doesn't. 
They keep playing this game fpr a while. But notice what's absent: there's no allegation, let alone evidence, that the North Koreans used the UI. In fact they had no reason to. It would save money for their great leader to just do it themselves. And if the UI ran on CloudFlare it wouldn't even work in NK. 
This last bit is highly relevant in the Dutch case since they're accused of laundering 'billions' and without the Lazarus funds that would drop to way less.
The SEC might have an opinion about that... 
It seems like they're undermining their case here. Clearly the money is coming from investors, not money launderers. This should have been a securities case. 
Ok, that was quite possibly the worst move ever. Assuming it was unilateral move by Storm, now the other two co-founders are sitting on coins (fiat?) received after the sanctions were into effect. Which comes with onerous reporting requirements, $1000+ / hour lawyers and countless ways for an eager prosecutor to (selectively) make your life hell.
It's the kind of thing you do *after* you've all moved to a non-extradition tropical island of choice. Not when two of you are sitting ducks. (Not legal advice) 
But also irrelevant to the Dutch case; these are US sanctions. Though perhaps there's an indirect case for laundering the proceeds of a crime (violating sanctions law of a befriended country). In any case this is the first time I hear about it. Pretty sure the Dutch prosecutor would have brought this up in the courtroom full of journalists if she knew about it at the time.
Didn't fincen write in like 2014 that non-custodial services don't need this license? Or was it more ambiguous? 