No, you didn’t miss a nuance
Nap is omitting facts so he can make rhetorical points. I’m pretty sure the US government hasn’t actually kidnapped Swiss bankers.
It seems straightforward to me...if their laws state that money laundering for terrorists who kill Americans is okay, then it seems that America would say “Okay. Your banks and personnel are persona non grata in this country and cannot operate here. (I just use “laundering money as an example...since one person’s laundering is another person’s business in some places)
But if America says “Okay, we know that your bank laws allow you to launder money, and we don’t have a problem allowing branches of your banks here as long as money laundering doesn’t take place, that’s okay with us.
If they were laundering money here and we let them operate here under our laws, then we revoke their license and give them the boot.
If we knew they were laundering and we let them have banks here, and no laundering takes place in these branches, what leg do we have to stand on if we are upset they are laundering money over there?