(I would have put /s here, but all these lines will be used at face value soon enough).
The car-related analogy isn't a car manufacturer. It isn't even an anonymous, stealth rental car service (although plenty of crimes could benefit from it).
The analogy is a taxi service that advertises itself as willing and able to crash through police barricades.
Edit: I should be quite clear, I am neither for or against AML regulations. I, however, am for an equal playing field. I would like to see a world where the increasing quantity of money one has doesn't have an increasing effect on how many times one's vote counts at the expense of those who don't have as much. Privacy and the ability to act collectively to support unpopular opinions should not be a commodity that can be bought and sold in the form of a corporate veil.
Building an encrypted messaging app is knowingly assisting crimial activities ... all you'd need is standard communication privacy laws, not actual encryption.
Law is not a bright shiny source of truth from outer heaven, it is a sketchy framework of hacks and patches written in haste to aid people in resolving their conflicts.
But things that are illegal are... illegal.
Nobody in this thread is really debating the morality of illegal actions we're talking about. And while debating morality can be entertaining, it doesn't really change what happened here.
No. Because there never is any planning between the manufacturer and the bank robbers.
Remember: we are talking about money laundering operations here, not accidentally receiving stolen goods without knowing.
Can these use be abused? Yes. Very much. Should they still exist? Yes.