i) and iii) are pretty well established in American jurisprudence. ii) is less so and is the reason for the uproar. The article is making the proposition that ii) is true, but I don't think that's actually correct. On the facts of this case i) and iii) are sufficient to lay charges here, but the indictment is written to look like ii) is true.

EDIT: I want to add that there is not very clear case law on the .com issue - that was what SOPA was in part designed to do, make a statutory provision to allow assertion of jurisdiction. I think it's important to keep in mind that the filing of the indictment is not a judicial ruling and is not necessarily "the law of the land". The quotes the article used were true, but taken out of context. They are referring to funds being transferred outside of US but related to business done cross-border.