I fail to see how crypto and privacy are terribly relevant here.

People may have a right to privacy in *legal* activity.

But once the activity turns criminal, privacy may no longer apply --- with or without crypto.

In other words, the same would likely apply if he was helping criminals privately move their cash.

Anything can be used for criminal activity so this case probably rests on the extent of his knowledge and intent (or indifference) to aiding in this.