I see it differently. Generally, DT members tag other members who are aware of and actively promote fraudulent schemes and businesses that have the tendency to scam their customers (or at least have strong indications that it could be so). In my opinion, CM does not fit into that classification, and I'm not aware of any intention on their part to deceive their customers.
So, according to you, the main reason is knowing about a scam vs not knowing about it? So, a person who promoted bitconnect not knowing that it's a scam is OK, but a person who had their suspicions and still did that is semi-OK? No sarcasm, I'm interested where the line is.
Also, where is it proven that CM wasn't deleting data as promised? As of now, all we know is that authorities have allegedly seized 7TB of data, but the contents of that data remain unknown. All other investigations detailed in the document, specifically those related to the mixer's source of use, rely on the analysis of public blockchain data.
That's why I said that IF it is proven. I have no idea what was seized.
Where is the difference? Online casinos also operate in a grey area since they are prohibited in numerous jurisdictions and can serve as a means for money laundering, particularly if they lack proper regulation (which is the case for many).
What's the percentage of regulated mixers vs regulated casinos? Are there even mixers that are registered as legal businesses and pay taxes?
Another difference is that most casinos should obey AML rules in their jurisdiction. People with large deposits have to go through KYC procedure and laundering through a casino is risky since they can take your money and claim whatever, like you've had more than 1 account, there was another connection from the same IP, you breached ToS because you used VPN, you haven't wagered enough to be able to withdraw, and so on. There are black sheep of the industry like 1xbit, but the majority of online casinos are licensed and try to be fair both ways, towards the client and the government.
Moreover, the use of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero is illegal in some jurisdictions, and even Bitcoin is illegal in certain parts of the world. Should we consider banning them as well?
The difference here is that money laundering is illegal everywhere. Bitcoin is illegal only in about 2% of the world (correct me if I'm wrong about the number) and I'd argue that no sane person would like to move to these countries, because they're either deep in debt and poverty (Nepal), or strict Muslim countries that believe in the narrative that bitcoin is haram. I'm sure you've noticed that bitcoin is currently banned in Iraq, Qatar, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Tunisia and there's one thing all this countries have in common - religion.