Silly argument.
Did the get-away driver for the bank robber who killed a guard, kill the guard? NO!
“Did the get-away driver for the bank robber who killed a guard, kill the guard? NO!”
And not a silly argument, because in order for the robbers to get away they needed an accomplice. That accomplice is directly assisting them.
But if say a person accepted a stolen $20 from the bank as legal tender in an exchange of goods in a shop, would that person also be liable for profiting from money that was stolen?
You need to recognize that there is a distinction between direct and indirect, remote and proximate.