I rather doubt there will be many interesting legal rulings to come out of the LR case. There may be some wrangling over jurisdictional issues and some defendants may fight extradition. Some may settle or plead guilty. If it can be shown that actual money laundering from a criminal organization occurred, there may be some finger pointing as far as who's to blame. Most of these issues wouldn't directly affect people not involved in the case.
To have the court rule on the validity of AML laws, someone would have to come forward and claim that the government violated their rights. If someone who used LR were to sue the government and demand their money back then things might get interesting, but that hasn't happened yet.
SCOTUS will only get to review it if there is a constitutional issue, and they care to look at it.
BUT...How forfeiture is handled in the lower courts for these pseudo-anonymous transactions will be interesting.
What is the standard of care for the innocent users hurt by the forfeiture? There are clear precedents for non-fraudulent users to be made whole once the matter is resolved. BUT... How to validate the claims?
This is distinct from Bitcoin where the transactions are more plainly recorded and more easily available, but the LR case could have some effects.
For example, if a Bitcoin exchange is allegedly doing money laundering, and the exchange gets seized. The non-anonymous users who are innocent of wrongdoing are also harmed by the seizure. The LR forfeiture case will have to accommodate the evidence of these users and have some standard to show that they are who they are without a pure KYC in place.
What is to stop a bunch of unrelated folks from making claims saying that XXX anonymous account is really their account and asking the government for their money back? How are valid claims proved? There has to be a standard of care there. This is where it will be interesting for Bitcoin (and where Bitcoin is clearly better).
