Both are immoral but only one is illegal. One can do a double-Irish-Dutch sandwich and rat fuck both employees and suppliers all in the name of creating value for the shareholders. While employees piss into bottles the forward thinking CEO engages in union busting methods to prevent them from organizing. Legal or not, why not, if you can get away by stalling until a court decides and you settle (or purge the board from the toxic elements and restart what you do with a new CEO).
¹ Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands
The way I understand it, the kind art that is most often used in money laundry schemes is the more controversial kind. When some people think that a painting is a waste of perfectly good canvas while some rick collectors think it is the expression of god himself, how can you assign a value? This extreme subjectivity is what makes it ideal for money laundering.
Bitcoin has negative cashflow, the only way it goes up is by more people putting money into it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Picasso paintings also have negative cashflow when you account for storage and security of the art. The only way a Picasso goes up in value is if more people with more money want to buy one. It is unfair to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme because no one calls a Picasso a Ponzi scheme.