From a U.S. and EU perspective, lumping regulated exchanges in with the rest of their competitors is misleading at best. In our experience, there is a clear difference between exchanges dedicated to compliance, and those that are not. The regulated exchanges generally possess robust KYC programs and spend a significant amount of effort in tracing transactions through high-risk touch-points including high-risk jurisdictions, mixing/tumbling services and exchanges with known compliance control deficiencies. 

What the author and related (unpublished) study are attempting to detail isn't a "crypto problem," it's a jurisdictional risk problem similar to that faced by traditional financial institutions, global trade companies, and the like. Any transaction that touches Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, or Myanmar is subject to a high-risk review of the entities involved and nature of activity due to the jurisdictional attributes, not just because crypto is a "scam" or inherently less transparent than traditional money.