you need to learn how to read and analyse.   Read the story NOT the headline.
AND YES, if you walk into Chase bank and withdraw a bunch of money and tell Jamie Dimon it is so you can buy some drugs (or help others buy drugs) and Jamie Dimon says "cool dude" and then Jamie Dimon FURTHER tells you how to circumvent Chase's compliance infrastructure so you can CONTINUE to do this, THEN THE CEO OF CHASE BANK WOULD BE THE ONE ON A PERP WALK.

Really? No alcoholics, no cigarette addicts (that one is brutal), no prescription drug users (you know for the "fibromyalgia"), no morbidly obese who can't stay out the buffet ot the fridge at 2am?

Maybe you're of the Amish online community. Fine, the rest of us have drug addict relatives, or are or have been addicts ourselves. You want to criminalize some addicts and turn them into a feedlot profit center and cheer on the jackbooted thugs kicking doors in, that offends me.

That my country would tolerate this for one second "because drugs m'kay" grossly offends me:

http://benswann.com/new-mexico-police-force-enemas-anal-cavity-searches-on-drivers-pulled-over-for-minor-violations/

That any country has to endure THIS because someone's little brother can't be spared the hazard of making his own fucking decisions in life-

http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/friends_of_ours/2013/08/beheaded-remains-of-thirteen-kidnapped-mexican-youths-found-in-mass-grave.html

This?

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/11/01/mexican-daily-nearly-60000-drug-war-deaths-under-calderon/

This offends me,  yes it does. If it does not offend you, may want to rethink your values. None of this is caused by drugs. It is caused by prohibition and the profits it generates.

Doubt that would happen. That guy is pretty much above the law. As are the top execs of the other TBTF banks. HSBC only got fined for far worse money laundering of drugs money.

Sure, the bankers are criminals just like your d00d.  They're simply better at what they do, and don't get pwnt.
Crime, like everything else in life, must be done right to be successful.
Your d00d was doing it wrong.
Doesn't make him innocent, simply bad at what he does.
Not sure what all the commotion is about.

Those who have the power to make laws get to decide what is a crime.
Unsurprisingly, laws are skewed to benefit those in power.

1. There is no evidence that Charlie knew what the BTC he sold was being spent for.

2. Its not his responsibility anyway.

3. There are many legal things for sale on Silk Road too. Corp USA argument has no merit whatsoever - these are simply scare tactics.

Bharara will go to any length in terms of aggressive and evil as long as it serves his career, from the looks of this

Let's check the facts:

-BTC is not illegal
-Silkroad per se was not illegal, it was a site where legal and illegal stuff was traded
-BTCKing sold legal bitcoins to users of a legal site. Whether BTCKing did comply with regulations when he sold a maximum of $1000 worth of BTC to anonymous counterparties, I don't know. Maybe BTCKing should have registered as a money transmitter? Maybe that part was not even clear in 2012? Hard to tell.
-Bitinstand obviously sold BTC to BTCKing, but not anonymously. This would be like bank A doing business with bank B. Bank A does not comply with regulations or has some customers that use cash withdrawn at their ATMs that are located in bad areas, for illegal purposes, and bank B is made responsible because they delivered the cash to fill these ATMs. The prosecutors would claim that bank B must have known that a lot of cash in these areas is used to buy drugs etc. Insane? Not from the viewpoint of insane minds.
-Advice from Bitinstant to BTCKing to split cash deposits is not illegal itself, in fact thousands of people get their bank accounts blocked for legal things like buying bitcoins. Advising someone to avoid certain things that are legal but also red flags, to avoid unnecessary discussions or account closures, is also not illegal.

In such a world, no bank could do business with another, since anyone could be arrested anytime for someone else's mistakes.

Funny how America complains to Russia about cases like Chodorkowski, but use the same twisted logic themselves all the time 

Now all Bharara needs to do, is attack Mtgox for trading with Bitinstant and, of course, all banks that have done business with Mtgox. Finally troops have to be sent to Japan because the Japanese central bank has "knowingly" sent funds to these banks, "making good profits along the way". Perhaps there are some intermediary banks to attack as well? What a huge pile of crap.

Let's see how this develops.

Kid can't even take the time to shave, and he wants to be a dirty money laundering kingpin.  What a joke.

Actually it is.  It is called structuring.  An MSB has certain requirements that don't exist for other businesses.   MSB are prohibited from advising their clients how to avoid reporting thresholds, they are prohibited from aiding their clients to structure transactions.  If a client does engage in structuring to avoid AML reporting, KYC requirements, or recordkeeping and the MSB becomes aware of that the MSB is required to treat all structured transactions as if they were a single transaction for various statutory obligations.  They are liable for failing to report transactions, failing to keep accurate books, and for even notifying clients that they have filed a report with FinCEN as required by law.

Everything you described would be a criminal act by an MSB, even if there was no underlying overt act.

My best advice is don't provide advice for things you have not done legal research on.  Someone may believe you and end up in prison as a result.

There is a huge difference between a financial institution (be it bank or MSB) UNKNOWINGLY processing transactions which are related to a criminal enterprise and doing so in compliance with its own internal AML policies and in accordance with the requirements set by FinCEN.  It is a completely different thing for an entity to KNOWINGLY engage in those transactions, violate its own internal AML policies, assist the criminal client with bypassing AML procedures, and failing to report those transactions to FinCEN.

The complaint doesn't allege the former, it alleges the latter.  For the record I am not saying Charlie is guilty of anything, the complaint is only that a complaint and the allegations until proven are just allegations.  It is up to a jury to decide if the state's ALLEGED charges have merit.  However lets at least start the discussion on what was ACTUALLY alleged and not some fantasy scenario where the prosecution is merely charging him for selling some coin in full compliance with his company's AML program that someone unknown to him later used them in a crime.  That is just 100% BS.

He was bailed out anyhow, nuff' said.