It says no illicit, but will that apply to Leo’s criminal trait? Thematically it probably should but gamewise probably not.

However, I like the idea of using the extra Leo action to go get his money from the bank each turn. He is like a bag man.

Illicit and criminal are distinct keywords. Neither stands for the other.

Edited to add: One need only look briefly at corruption in US government today to see how criminal activities can fail to be in any way illicit.

Edited again to add: "Bag man"? Leo in that role would be a perfectly respectable broker. Regrettably, "laws were broken" in the interest of his clients' profits.

Based on what we know now (that Preston is a Rogue, presumably 0-5, with access to Survivor 0-2, and unable to use Illicit cards), there's nothing stopping him using Criminal cards. As Carthoris says, they are entirely separate keywords, even if they are similar in theme. We don't know for certain, however - it might be that there's more going on with his deckbuilding and it's actually "No Illicit or Criminal cards", but there's no reason to assume this is the case.

Depending on whether you think of Preston as a shrewd and wealthy man exercising his considerable resources in the defense of the world, or as a slightly bumbling dilettante with enough money to buy his way out of whatever problems he gets himself into, you could consider him to be either wilfully or foolishly blind to the criminal nature of his associates. "Oh, you mean Leonard? Yes, he's a logistics service provider on retainer for my company. Why do you ask, officer?"

Leonard lmao!

13 hours ago, Carthoris said:

One need only look briefly at corruption in US government today to see how criminal activities can fail to be in any way illicit.

Only going by the figurative definition of "criminal". I'm pretty sure that much government corruption (in the US or elsewhere) is already against the law (and the rest probably should be).

7 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Only going by the figurative definition of "criminal". I'm pretty sure that much government corruption (in the US or elsewhere) is already against the law (and the rest probably should be).

I meant to assume that "that much government corruption (in the US or elsewhere) is already against the law," and therefore I was using a literal, not "figurative" definition of "criminal." Getting away with crimes in public view is the opposite of illicit.