[Bayard]

“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.

[ebb tide]

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?

Yes, he would be liable if he was aware of the crime, just as you are aware of the deathvaxxes. It's call money laundering versus dead baby laundering.