"There are laws out there, and he doesn't seem to want to follow them."
Would you apply this idea to 19th century when blacks and women did not have much rights? Or to 15th century Europe to those who are not following the rule of God? Or to 20th century Germany where people democratically voted for policies of you know who (hello, Godwin's law)?
By saying "there are laws out there" you implicitly declare a universal moral theory of yours which makes the laws you mention "legitimate" and "moral", meaning, whoever not following them is "immoral" and thus can be punished with violent coercion.
So as far as I understand, you are very well educated in philosophy of ethics to just say that a guy who was allegedly involved in moving some digital bits back and forth that allegedly helped some other guys to buy some vegetation, deserve violent punishment (being kidnapped, locked up and most possibly raped)?
My opinion is most of the finance-related laws are "thoughtcrime" laws that have no legitimacy at all. Heck, almost every law has no legitimacy because even democracy is not proven as a valid moral basis for human behavior. And so I do not advocate violence towards anyone. Instead, I suggest people use tools to protect themselves against each other (locks, insurance, alarms, crypto, bitcoin, private protection services etc.), instead of trying to retaliate after something bad happens.
Your philosophy is flawed and before you realize it you may be actively advocating for huge evil without knowing it. Like it always happened in the any country where people cheer for their rulers until the rulers come after them. Absolutely in line with the law, after all.