Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're addressing 18 USC 1956 (a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(i). I'm concerned with (a)(1)(B)(ii), which concerns reporting requirements. The kind of financial transactions that Tornado Cash enables are fundamentally incompatible with the US's Federal reporting requirements. My understanding of the Dutch criminal code (which is not great!) is that their standard is even weaker: it is sufficient to demonstrate mere concea…
At least under US law, intent is still required. Meaning that while some users of TC may have violated this law, the devs did not, nor did they knowingly aid in it or have any provable intent to do so. I don't know what Dutch law says with regard to intent/knowing participation, but I suspect that any system of laws in a civilized country would generally require it for criminal convictions.
The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality.