I believe the principal is that everything which is not banned is legal. This probably has a funky Latin translation, but I don’t know as I’m not a lawyer.
John has gone to the pub, a random person gave him $5,000 and said he can keep half if he transfers the rest to Bob. Later it turned out it was drug money.
The question in court will not be "is money laundering illegal" or "is taking money from random people illegal". The question in court will be "does this amount to money laundering, or is john just an idiot and it was not his responsibility to know".
Similarly, here we are discussing not "is market manipulation illegal", but "does the activity carried out by Apple amount to market manipulation"
Comparing Apple to game consoles is basically: "stop selling drugs" - "John does it too, and he is not in jail, so it's fine."
That argument only works if John has been to court and a judge has ruled that he is innocent. That's case law - it established that previously, in similar circumstances, a court has rules that this was / wasn't a crime.
Mens rea ("guilty mind") itself is not a uniformly applied principle. But it's the name of the concept you were attempting to address above.
See also actus reus ("guilty act").
And note that in tort liability (as opposed to criminal liability) other standards may apply. "Strict liabilty" is more typically applied in civil law, though there are (I learned responding here) some applications in criminal law as well. In the latter case it seems to be similar to my understanding of prima facie violation. That is, the fact of a thing is a violation of law, regardless of intent.
