I don't know the answer, but I imagine looking at the benefits of his actions would help inform. Did he have ties to criminal organizations, or receive payments from them?
When you add a "don't mix my stuff with the known criminal accounts" toggle in the UI, it's hard to argue ignorance.
The on chain contract like that can't possibly know which funds are "illicit" or "marked as suspicious". Only users entering the contract can possibly have some logic on the client side to bail out if they notice the would be joining funds with some best effort list of "illicit" addresses, and there's really nothing forcing them to use it.
I bet generally here both the public and judges do not understand the technical details.
Lots of open source software activists are idealists. This is why I asked if there's evidence they were actually receiving illicit funds.
So, if he had an epiphany that criminals were using the system and the feature requests he was getting an naively implementing were benefiting criminals, why not block those accounts rather than implementing a "keep my stuff separate from the criminals the system knows about" switch?
The whole point of a trial is to establish guilt, and part of guilt is mens rea. Well, at least I assume that's true in the Netherlands, please correct if I'm wrong.
An idealist who just happens to believe that firing guns into the air is the most noble expression of freedom is still going to be liable for bad outcomes. You can argue murder versus negligence, but there is no "maybe he just wanted to see a bunch of lead in the air" argument for actual innocence.