Stealing the honeypot is very similar to buying a crime-scene. I guess the only differences being one is covert, and one is overt. We saw the later when Elon bought twitter. In hindsight the underlying 'value' proposition that collateralized twitter was not its earning potential, or its views per month, userbase size, the legions of bots, or advertising or anything else free-market. Rather its the quantity of $ that criminals would put on the table in order to obstruct the change of ownership to hands more benign that determined its purchase price.

So if that was true about twitter, is it also true about say Amazon, or Google, or Apple? Do banks have the value they do not because of the assets that back them, but rather the amount of narco, pedo, deepstate, and other misc terrorist money-laundering schemes that the bank knowingly partakes in?