The simplest way to understand this is that money from crime is tracked so that investigators can follow it to the bad guys. We have laws that financial providers have to keep records so we can find the bad guys. A tool whose explicit exclusive purpose is to obfuscate bad guys money will not satisfy the legal requirements of operating financial services in the US. No one should be surprised by this.
Which seems unlikely in his case as he is based out of Russia.
US can and will restrict his access to US persons/assets (incl. vice versa).
"China has financial laws. Enforcing those laws is not tyranny" to justify an incredible government over-reach into what any one in the world may publish, and how any one in the world may encrypt their digital financial transactions.
>>The simplest way to understand this is that money from crime is tracked so that investigators can follow it to the bad guys.
While there is abundant evidence that these laws impose massive costs on law-abiding citizens and companies, there is little to no evidence that they are effective at reducing crime:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1...
They do support the burgeoning regulatory compliance industry though.