Yeah, it would be, if done to pursue ends that the law has deemed criminal. This isn't the gotcha you might think it is, because no one is going to bat an eye at your attempt to boil the nuance of a law out in an effort to expose some underlying paradox that only matters on a technical level. I'm not saying that the law will be wise, or efficacious, or even really pertinent, just that we already have ways of reconciling what you may perceive as being an intractable problem. Like, laws against theft don't mean that any action where I take something of yours without express permission is theft, like a genuine intent with the context that it was needed to safely handle an immediate hazard to life or limb.
That example is admittedly weak, but do you see where I'm going with that?
I see where you are going, but I'm not arguing that the government won't be willing or able to enforce what transactions are permissible if they can prove the multiplication involved was used to facilitate an exchange.
What I am saying is that governments who are passing laws not to regulate transactions, but to prevent the use of cryptocurrencies in general, will fail due to a first principles analysis of what they'll be trying to do.
That example is admittedly weak, but do you see where I'm going with that?