The analogy is irrelevant to the broader point. The FIOD statement is vague at best and can be interpreted in many ways. Check this part of the text: " It is suspected that persons behind this organisation have made large-scale profits from these transactions." Does this suggest that IF you make privacy preserving tech that ALLOWS certain parties to do illegal activities and YOU profit from it, you're responsible for what happens? Regardless if it is decentralized and "uncontrollable"?