In some (even US) jurisdictions they call it 'mutual combat' [0] and overlook it. In some places like Washington State (not: not legal advice) one may be under the impression criminal-on-criminal combat is explicitly legal. There's also a lot of historical context (think outlaws in wild west) that suggests that those in the American West may culturally not find it surprisingly that the public would generally be OK with criminals doing themselves in.

It's my understanding that in Texas it may even be possible that killing thieves is legal there in some circumstances as well.

Edit: perhaps I wasn't as explicit in the part to read between the lines. The police in US are oft perceived as being more likely to 'overlook' or consider it 'mutual combat' for acts against criminals. I don't think the analysis "that has nothing to do with them being criminal" is really a fair conclusion.

[0] https://torontosun.com/news/world/no-charges-in-deadly-chica...

Using/owning proceeds of a crime is a crime.

This logic didn't work for Armin Meiwes, it probably wouldn't work for this guy either.

That’s probably what flagged them in the first place: Lots of withdrawals without any deposits or sales, so appeared to be a site operator.