I don't think that logic checks out. It being "slower, riskier, with less protection and usually more expensive" are not properties that self selects for criminals.

Stablecoins typically being self-custodial, easier to transfer in large amounts, and internationally accessible seem like it would support criminals, but with stablecoins, funds can be frozen just like bank deposits can.

This is emphasized in the article you linked:

> The investigation began in late 2023 when Tether, the issuer of the USDT stablecoin, proactively froze 39 wallet addresses containing $225 million in stolen USDT after detecting suspicious activity. This immediate action was critical in preventing further dispersion of the illicit funds. Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, was quoted as saying, “Tether’s work with the Department of Justice underscores our commitment to transparency, proactive engagement with law enforcement, and the protection of users across the digital asset ecosystem.”

And the number you quoted is for cryptocurrency at large, not stablecoins. I imagine the number looks a lot different when we filter for that subset of usecases. For the large amounts used in stories like this, banks would be a better indicator for comparison[1][2]. Venmo, Cashapp, and Zelle have had their fair share of scandals as well[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia#Latin_drug_cartel_mon...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/td-bank-appoints-co...

[3] https://www.freep.com/story/money/personal-finance/susan-tom...

Tether has been reluctant in many cases to freeze addresses reported to it. At least historically it would not do so if the coins didn’t belong to its direct customers (mostly the large exchanges), rather than individuals who got them from their customers and did crime.

https://archive.ph/6nvkc

The other major issue is it’s easy to get the stablecoins, move them around, cash them out, and by the time Tether freezes them the criminals have already been paid (in dollars, which is what they want really).

Even criminals don't want the insane volatility of vanilla crypto, and there's an unfounded sentiment that Tether doesn't freeze value in people's wallets (they actually freeze more than anyone else, and good luck resolving it in Salvadoran court if they even have jurisdiction).

Yes classical finance has had scandals because they're obligated to prevent these things, and in general, they have responded to court judgements by upping their internal controls. Crypto is built specifically not to have either internal controls or the ability to institute them in a meaningful way. It's the fundamental premise. One system is designed to stop this activity but fails sometimes, the other is designed to allow this activity by anarchocapitalist libertarian ethos and offers roughly zero recourse for those caught up incorrectly.

This argument is tantamount to "well, a plane crashed, so obviously the FAA doesn't provide any value, and we should just stop regulating aircraft entirely and yolo it." Same with drugs, well, a side-effect happened, let's just scrap the FDA and legalize the grey market Chinese sackloads of $5 peptides. While we're at it, we should let Walgreens sell em, why not.

If you think what the classical institutions are doing is wrong, you shouldn't say well, just let 'em lol, you should be arguing for stricter penalties and more control. If you think it's right, well, I don't know what to say.

Pepperidge Farm remembers when nobody in their right mind would just give all their money to unregulated offshore banks in the Caribbean. Remind me why that was again?