Walking past a place perfectly is legal and moral. Abuse of a dominant market position is neither. Google employees weren't being warned against talking about something innocuous that happened to be associated with crime. They were being warned against talking about doing crimes!
They were being warned about speech that is associated with a specific prohibited behavior in an effort to not find the company having to defend against that prohibited behavior at a later date. It's asinine to try to use preemptive training against prohibited behavior as an example of said behavior. It's worse to use it as some kind of evidence of conspiratorial behavior.
It's like if I tell you "It's not ok to murder people" or "We do not murder people" in an email and then a prosecutor uses that email to say I was conspiring to commit murder. If you have a predisposition to think I'm the murderous type, sure you can read it as me trying to obscure what I'm doing. Or you could look at it as me trying to communicate that we don't freaking murder people. Choosing to read it as conspiratorial, without other evidence, says a lot about you and not the group you are accusing.
At the end of the day I do think Google is too big for it's own good and perhaps they hit legal definitions of illegal monopolistic behavior. I do not thing this training is evidence of that fact and should, in fact, be evidence to the contrary.
