They plead guilty not due to actual guilt, but because they were blocked from providing nearly all of their items and arguments for defense and because they were looking at having a farce of a case that ended in 25 years in prison. While the very regulator who would determine whether they were a money transmitter publicly stated and directly informed the prosecution that what they did would not fall under "money transmission." Yet the prosecution went forward anyway and simply made it so this essential piece of evidence was not presented in court.

They can't be guilty of a crime that A. its a crime and has no victim and B. when the very authority that would determine the regulatory obligation of the action itself claims they were not in violation.

That's pretty fucked up in my book