The judge seems to have used a very narrow view of money. They argued that money must be universally accepted and have a steady value.

I don't know the law in this case, but does this mean that money laundering is ok as long as it's done through something that isn't cash? For example, bearer bonds aren't universally accepted so I could launder my money using them? Gold certainly isn't universally accepted and its value fluctuates compared to the US Dollar so laundering with gold wouldn't be illegal? If there's a currency from a foreign country that's less accepted than Bitcoin, can I wash my money though that legally? The ruling in the case just doesn't pass a logic test. If something has to pass a two-pronged test of near-universal acceptance and stable value compared to the USD, then it's going to make money laundering trivially legal.

Now, this case seems kinda bad from the gov't side. I mean, imagine someone wants to buy some bitcoin from you and then casually drops, "yea, I'm gonna do somethin' illegal with it" at the last minute. What are you supposed to do in that situation? I wouldn't say no simply because, well, do these people have a gun and are going to get shooty if I don't go through with it?

In fact, the judge said, "This court is unwilling to punish a man for selling his property to another, when his actions fall under a statute that is so vaguely written that even legal professionals have difficulty finding a singular meaning." Which really says that the judge was struggling to find a way to let someone off that was captured by a law written so vague as to capture everyone. I mean, if the law criminalizes all financial transactions that might promote some illegal activity, that's a crappy law.

I can see not wanting to punish some random person that got caught in this police action. That still doesn't (shouldn't) mean that Bitcoin can't be considered money laundering.