(Randazza had a back-and-forth with "David Blade", who was as it turns out almost certainly not a lawyer, which is something a real lawyer can pretty quickly tell with a couple of questions, like, "why aren't you registered in the state you claim to practice in" and others).
Probably because it's so open and shut. If the people running the site have gotten someone to send them money, it's essentially game over.
Notice how we are all (me included) willing to jump to a conclusion knowing only what we read in an article.
As I like to say there is a reason trials take a long time. Details matter and we don't have all the details. That said it looks pretty clear cut to me based on the facts presented as well!
There's always a veil of uncertainty over these kinds of stories, but let's just say that in this case, the veil is especially thin.
And I don't. It might be illegal and it might not be. This is one more incidence where the ubiquity of technology in our world is creating a situation that is morally clear but potentially legally vague.