The article is full of misdirections and word plays.
It starts of with "Bitcoin is used by criminals, because the currency is not controlled by banks and thus there is no supervision". This is the first misdirection, because just because it's not controlled by banks doesn't mean you cannot supervise it. The core idea of bitcoin _is_ supervision. It's a public ledger.
It then continues to support their argument by saying "Bitcoins go back and forth in a _closed_ system of users, so authorities can't see it". Which is just a plain lie. Bitcoin is an _open_ system. Anyone can see any transaction.
The article continues: "As soon as the bitcoins were turned into real cash, the money was turned into cash at banks. They finally stepped to the police, because their warning systems detected large amounts of money being transferred".
So apparently it _was_ really easy to track down? They detected the weird transfers and were able to find the criminals. Seems bitcoin actually saved us here? That totally is the opposite of what they told us two paragraphs back where they said "there is no insight at all in what happens with bitcoin"
The article then continues to mumble about how TOR == Dark web and it's just painful to read. I hate media. Now my mom starts asking me akward questions about hard drugs because I have a TOR and a Bitcoin sticker on my laptop.
[0] http://nos.nl/artikel/2081531-bitcoins-en-dark-web-een-goed-...