The mixing of stolen coins with Coldcard has begun. It goes through Wasabiwallet, so it's not as sophisticated as one might have expected.
One part was swapped into ETH, which was later sent to Tornado Cash

As far as I understand, they can and will, but only on the basis of clear evidence from the owner of the coins
Here is kruw statement: https://stacker.news/items/1530165?commentId=1530545

Yes, and that's exactly how services like b1exch can end up on the radar of law enforcement. Once a platform is found to have processed or facilitated the movement of hacked or illicit funds, it gives authorities a stronger reason to investigate or even shut it down.
We've seen similar situations with mixers and exchanges that became associated with laundering stolen/hacked crypto. Even if a service isn't directly involved in the theft, repeatedly processing those funds can still attract regulatory scrutiny and legal action.

Refunding it back to the known hackers wallet address is the right thing based on the blocklist (they will make or already made). And put a warning message to it that it wont process, etc.

And have a new policy regarding the processing of hackers address. But of course, hackers can just send to its another address multiple times then make a transaction to the platform. With that, b1exch can't do any thing, unless they insert new address on their blocklist list.
The idea isn't really about stopping hackers. It's about establishing that the platform has no intention of facilitating the laundering of funds when it has clear, credible knowledge of their origin. That distinction could be meaningful in demonstrating "good faith" operation, even though it cannot prevent attackers from using fresh addresses or more sophisticated laundering techniques.

And what, if the authorities claim that the coins were stolen, does that suddenly leave no room for the suspicion? Personally, I don't trust the authorities any more than I trust commercial analysts.

I don't think this is a solution. Those who prefer to rely on the authorities can keep their Bitcoins in regulated custodial services. But those who choose self-custody probably did so precisely to avoid depending on the decisions of the authorities.

I agree with your thinking.

There is simply nothing what b1exch can do, anything they will do goes against the terms themselves. The maximum they could do is to refund the funds once it is proven that the funds originated from the theft, but for this, they will need some third-party tool to track the funds or government cooperation.

Even if the stolen funds pass through b1exch, it makes no sense to the gov seizing the platform, because instant-exchange is only a tool, seizing a tool just because a criminal used to launder funds is the same as banning paper money because various bad actors use it to launder stolen funds, doesn't make sense.

It's the same as a country wanting to block discord on national territory because there are pedophiles using the app.

What must be done is to apply justice, go after criminals, investigate, go through entire due legal process, seize tools is authoritarianism and pure ignorance, it is to punish and prohibit victims and good people from using the service, while the real culprits will  just jump to the next available service. Censoring, seizing do not solve the problem, what it resolves is that the police and security agencies and bodies do their work unilaterally.

The 'morally right thing to do' is also that Bitcoin should not allow hackers and thieves to move from their Addresses.  But particularly following the 'morally right things to do' is how you get to how Tether, Binance and every other platform and centralized Cryptocurrency works.

A Blacklist is subjective.  That applies even to United States sanction lists.  You could say some of these are definitely justified, but some of them are not and there is NO way all the many thousands of entried in that Sanction list are objectively right.

I want a platform that runs on Cypherpunk ideas.  On the same ideas Bitcoin was made of.  Asking a platform to 'establish' that they have no intention of facilitating crime is in my opinion a bad idea.  Anyway.  Following this idea you can get in a very deep rabbit hole.  For example.  Is Know Your Customer not out there particularly to prevent crime?  Then should it not be the 'morally right thing to do' that b1exch also integrates Know Your Customer?  How about Anti Money Laundering?  If b1exch wanted peace and silence from the European Union or The United States, they would have created a platform that integrated all the regulations and laws they are asked and expected to.

I could go on.  My point is.  Expecting a Blacklist from b1exch is like expecting Coinbase to integrate a Mixer in their own platform.  It goes against what it theoretically stands for.

-----

That is any thing but a neutral position.  Neutral means all Bitcoin is treated the same.

Where should they get the list of Addresses 'legally blocked or identified by authorities'?  The United States?  That is not neutral for Russians.  Russia?  That is not neutral for most of the World.

Neutral means fungibility.

b1exch does not have that right however.  Not according to their Terms anyway.

That would be a sad reality for us to wake up to.

And they better not.  I believe that would only spark unnecessary debates, dillemas, trust issues et cetera.

Are you sure by 'facilitated' authorities mean in all these reports they intentionally gave advantages to a particular type of customers?  Because I am pretty sure 'facilitated' can also mean the criminals were simply able to use the website normally like the rest of us do.  And that is particularly the problem authorities have with these websites, that they do not treat particular type of customers in a different way.

Bitfinex finally unlocked my withdrawals after holding my funds for over three weeks. Based on the outcome of the investigation, I can say for sure that b1exch had nothing to do with it. The suspicion was not caused by me trying to withdraw tokens to their address.

If the problem had been with that address, Bitfinex would have asked me at least one question about it. But there were no such questions. I received a lot of questions, but the ones concerning withdrawals only related to the transactions that I hadn't canceled at the time of the inquiry. The withdrawal to the b1exch address had already been canceled, and Bitfinex had no interest in it.

Apparently, I just had a lot of deposits into Bitfinex in various cryptocurrencies from different addresses, and a critical mass accumulated, after which Bitfinex put my account under review, requesting information on the source of funds for all incoming deposits.

By the way, the original source of one of these deposits was income from a b1exch signature campaign. I wrote Bitfinex about this, and it caused no difficulties or additional questions.

So, as of right now, Bitfinex definitely does not view interacting with b1exch as anything illicit.

Only blockchain.com labeled the wallet address as "Coldcard hacker". Mempool.space, blockchair, blockstream, blockexplorer, btcscan, bitapps doesnt have labels yet.

You mean having blocklisted address of explorers can prevent or block the transaction? That's technically not possible if its already made and done, only the sender (address owner) can do anything about it before it got confirmed.