Roman Storm has filed a motion for acquittal arguing prosecutors failed to prove he intended to assist illicit users of the Tornado Cash mixer; his lawyers say the conviction rests on a negligence theory, not the willfulness required for unlicensed money transmission.
-
Storm seeks acquittal, saying prosecutors didn’t prove intent
-
Defense frames the conviction as based on negligence, not willfulness, challenging legal sufficiency
-
OFAC data cited in filings: Tornado Cash processed over $7 billion since 2019, with ~30% linked to illicit activity
Roman Storm motion for acquittal: key legal challenge to Tornado Cash conviction. Read the motion summary and implications—latest updates and expert commentary.
Roman Storm, the co-founder of crypto mixer Tornado Cash, asked the court to overturn his conviction for unlicensed money transmission.
Roman Storm, co-founder of Tornado Cash, has filed a motion asking a U.S. federal judge to acquit him of his single conviction for unlicensed money transmission and to set aside the jury’s hung counts for money laundering and sanctions violations. The defense argues prosecutors did not prove Storm acted with the requisite intent to facilitate criminal misuse of the mixer.
The motion, filed Sept. 30, contends the government relied on a negligence theory — claiming Storm knew bad actors used Tornado Cash and failed to stop them — rather than proving deliberate, willful assistance. The defense asserts that negligence cannot substitute for the willfulness standard required under the charged statutes.
Tornado Cash website. Source: Tornado.Cash
The motion for acquittal asks the court to throw out charges or a verdict when, even accepting the prosecution’s evidence as true, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. Storm’s lawyers emphasize that proof of intent — a conscious decision to assist illicit actors — is absent from the record.
Related: Ethereum Foundation introduces ‘Privacy Stewards for Ethereum’ and roadmap
What is Roman Storm’s motion for acquittal?
Roman Storm’s motion for acquittal argues that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence of willful intent to assist criminal misuse of Tornado Cash. The filing asks the judge to overturn the unlicensed money transmission conviction and dismiss counts where the jury deadlocked.
How does the defense describe the government’s theory?
The defense says the government advanced a negligence-based theory: that Storm knew bad actors used Tornado Cash and failed to prevent misuse. That theory, the motion asserts, is incompatible with the statutory requirement of willfulness and cannot sustain a criminal conviction on its own.
Why is intent central to the case?
Under U.S. criminal law, many offenses require proof that a defendant acted willfully — with conscious intent to break the law or to assist wrongdoing. The defense argues prosecutors offered no affirmative evidence Storm intended to help illicit actors, so convicting him for mere inaction would lower the legal standard improperly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did official agencies report about Tornado Cash usage?
Government filings referenced by the defense note that the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) reported Tornado Cash processed over $7 billion in digital currency since 2019, and estimated about 30% of that amount involved addresses linked to illicit activity. The motion stresses those aggregate figures do not show Storm’s individual intent.
When was Storm arrested and what followed?
Roman Storm was arrested in late August 2023 by federal authorities. Co-founder Roman Semenov was designated by OFAC. The case prompted industry debate about developer liability and the boundaries between decentralized code and criminal facilitation.
The case has drawn criticism from crypto advocates. The Blockchain Association (plain text mention) warned Storm’s conviction could set a “dangerous” precedent for developers, arguing Tornado Cash operated as non‑custodial software and that its operators did not control user funds.
Key Takeaways
- Legal focus: The motion centers on lack of proven willful intent versus a negligence-based theory.
- Regulatory context: OFAC and prosecutors cite large aggregate transaction volumes, including alleged illicit flows.
- Industry impact: Conviction and appeals could influence policy and developer liability debates around privacy tools.
Conclusion
The motion for acquittal by Roman Storm reframes the Tornado Cash conviction as legally insufficient because intent was not proven, challenging a negligence narrative used by prosecutors. The judge’s ruling will have implications for privacy tooling, developer liability, and how regulators approach non‑custodial protocols. Watch for the court’s decision and further filings.
Sources and context referenced in this report include court filings dated Sept. 30, public statements from industry organizations (Blockchain Association), OFAC data summaries, and public commentary from figures including Vitalik Buterin (plain text mentions).
Publication date: 2025-10-01. Last updated: 2025-10-01.
