U.S. prosecutors have rejected Roman Storm’s motion for acquittal following his conviction for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business via Tornado Cash, citing overwhelming evidence from trial that disproves claims of mere decentralized code development.
-
Storm’s defense argued Tornado Cash was just open-source code without control over usage.
-
Prosecutors countered with evidence of centralized control and hidden profits exceeding $12 million.
-
The service processed billions, including funds from the Ronin Bridge hack tied to North Korean hackers, per trial exhibits.
Discover how U.S. prosecutors dismantled Roman Storm’s Tornado Cash acquittal bid with key evidence on money laundering and sanctions. Stay informed on crypto regulation developments—read more now.
What is Roman Storm’s latest move in the Tornado Cash case?
Roman Storm, the lead developer of the cryptocurrency mixing service Tornado Cash, has filed a motion seeking judgment of acquittal after his conviction on charges related to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. This legal challenge comes in the wake of a four-week trial where a jury found him guilty of conspiring to process criminal proceeds through the platform. Prosecutors, in a detailed 113-page response, labeled his arguments as meritless and supported by irrefutable trial evidence, including witness testimonies and exhibits linking the service to sophisticated laundering activities.
How did prosecutors respond to claims that Tornado Cash was just decentralized code?
The U.S. government’s filing, prepared under the oversight of the Southern District of New York, methodically refutes Storm’s assertion that he only developed open-source software without oversight of its applications. Trial evidence, including private communications, revealed that Storm and collaborators maintained centralized elements, such as a relayer system, contradicting public decentralization claims. Even Storm’s own expert conceded during testimony that Tornado Cash involved multiple interconnected components beyond immutable smart contracts, enabling active management and profit extraction. Prosecutors emphasized, “The claim that Tornado Cash was nothing more than a decentralized protocol was decisively disproven at trial,” highlighting messages where Storm admitted to fabricating the decentralization narrative for external audiences.
The case underscores ongoing tensions in cryptocurrency regulation, where developers face scrutiny for tools that can obscure transaction trails. During the trial, 21 witnesses provided accounts of the platform’s operations, and over 400 exhibits demonstrated its role in mixing billions in digital assets, including illicit funds. This evidence painted Tornado Cash not as a neutral tool but as a deliberate mechanism for evading financial oversight.
Financial motivations further undermine Storm’s defense. Records showed he concealed over $12 million in profits derived from TORN governance tokens, liquidating them via accounts registered under pseudonyms and foreign identities. This activity, according to the brief, directly ties to criminal intent, as a significant volume of Tornado Cash’s transactions involved proceeds from illegal sources. “His substantial profits, cashed out under a pseudonym, were powerful evidence explaining his criminal intent,” the prosecutors stated, noting that such gains formed a core part of the business model.
A notable aspect of the prosecution’s argument involves Tornado Cash’s facilitation of high-profile hacks. The platform processed hundreds of millions in funds stolen from the Ronin Bridge exploit, attributed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group—a sanctioned entity. Despite warnings about these illicit users, Storm allegedly continued to operate and update the relayer system, which expedited withdrawals and mingled dirty money with legitimate flows. This connection not only violated U.S. sanctions but also amplified the service’s role in global money laundering networks.
While the jury convicted Storm on the unlicensed money transmission conspiracy charge, it deadlocked on two others: money laundering conspiracy and sanctions violations. Prosecutors assert the evidence supported full conviction across all counts, but the partial verdict still imposes significant penalties. Legal experts, including those from the Electronic Frontier Foundation mentioned in public statements, have voiced concerns over the broader implications for blockchain developers, though the government’s position remains firm on accountability for foreseeable misuse.
The trial’s scope revealed Tornado Cash’s evolution from a privacy-focused tool to a haven for criminals, processing over $7 billion in total volume since its 2019 launch. Blockchain analytics firms, such as Chainalysis, provided data during proceedings showing that a disproportionate share—up to 10% in some periods—involved sanctioned or stolen assets. This statistic bolsters the prosecution’s narrative that Storm’s involvement went beyond coding to active operation of a high-risk financial service.
In the broader crypto ecosystem, this case sets precedents for how decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols are treated under existing laws like the Bank Secrecy Act. Regulators have increasingly targeted mixers, with the Treasury Department’s 2022 sanctions on Tornado Cash marking a pivotal enforcement action. Storm’s challenge tests these boundaries, potentially influencing future developer liability in privacy-enhancing technologies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What charges was Roman Storm convicted on in the Tornado Cash trial?
Roman Storm was convicted of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business that facilitated the laundering of criminal proceeds through Tornado Cash. The jury deliberated over a month, reviewing evidence from 21 witnesses and more than 400 exhibits before reaching this verdict on the primary count.
Why did the jury deadlock on some Tornado Cash charges against Storm?
The jury could not agree on the money laundering conspiracy and sanctions violation counts due to complexities in proving direct intent for those specific elements, though prosecutors believe the overall evidence warranted conviction. This outcome allows for retrial on the hung charges if pursued by the government.
Key Takeaways
- Overwhelming trial evidence refutes decentralization claims: Prosecutors presented private messages and expert testimony showing Tornado Cash’s centralized control points, disproving the “just code” defense.
- Hidden profits reveal criminal intent: Storm concealed over $12 million in TORN tokens, linking personal gains to illicit transactions that comprised a major portion of the service’s activity.
- Global hack ties heighten stakes: Processing funds from the Ronin Bridge exploit underscores Tornado Cash’s role in sanctions evasion, prompting continued regulatory scrutiny in crypto.
Conclusion
The U.S. prosecutors’ robust rejection of Roman Storm’s acquittal motion in the Tornado Cash case reinforces the legal risks tied to cryptocurrency mixing services and unlicensed money transmission. With evidence of centralized operations, concealed profits, and connections to major hacks like Ronin, the conviction highlights the intersection of DeFi innovation and financial crime prevention. As the case progresses, stakeholders in the crypto space should monitor developments closely, preparing for stricter compliance measures that could shape the future of privacy tools in blockchain technology.
