How's that?

Like, if McDonald's unknowingly sells a Big Mac to a hungry sex trafficker, have they facilitated sex trafficking? What if they do know he's a sex trafficker, but he's not currently dragging any women behind him with chains? Does he like have to be in flagrant possession of captive victims for it to be "facilitating"?

The legal definition, such as it is, is lame and rather loose. And besides, prosecutors routinely twist and stretch these definitions and judges rarely rebuke them for it, let alone shut it down (at least at the district level).

"Facilitating X" usually means that the defendant associated with the criminals, was vaguely aware that they committed crimes, and didn't refuse to do business with them (or in some cases, that they didn't become vigilante police themselves and investigate to be sure that the customers weren't criminals).

I'm reminded of a man prosecuted because he was selling little plastic vials with lids out of his dollar store. As he realized how popular they were, he ordered more... until at one point, he sought out a local manufacturer to make the things so he could reduce costs. The product was popular with crack dealers or something.

He was prosecuted on a "facilitation" charge of some sort. The idea of "facilitation" in regards to crime probably needs to be abandoned.