The crime was, and always was, the first action (transaction?) between the people doing the heist and the bank.
Whatever happened afterward is irrelevant. For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. I assume that's some sort of crime in whatever jurisdiction you are in, and if not, well, there are banks waiting for you friend.
> For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains.
Highly debatable. What does it mean to "have" $1,000,000? Is there even such a thing as instantaneous net worth? Being a millionaire for a brief instant with no ability to use the money seems a lot like having $0.
Regardless, this just demonstrates that the bank robbery analogy is flawed. It's not illegal for the president to access the classified national security information. How he uses that information is where the crime may have occurred.
So perhaps a better analogy is armored car drivers transporting the money. They're allowed to possess the money. They're not allowed to do whatever they want with it, like, say, lend it out for profit.
Whatever happened afterward is irrelevant. For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. I assume that's some sort of crime in whatever jurisdiction you are in, and if not, well, there are banks waiting for you friend.