Tornado Cash Dev Roman Storm Moves to Dismiss Indictment Over Crypto-Laundering Allegations

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado em 2024-03-30Última atualização em 2024-03-30

  • Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm's legal team filed a motion Friday to dismiss a criminal indictment alleging he conspired to commit money laundering and violate sanctions.
  • Storm was arrested last year over his work with Tornado Cash, which has been used by North Korean hackers and other groups to launder funds.
  • Storm did not work with these groups, but rather just published code that anyone can use, the filing said.

Building Tornado Cash, a tool that can be used to obscure the origin and destination of cryptocurrency transfers, is not the same as laundering money, said a motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against developer Roman Storm.

Storm and fellow developer Roman Semenov were indicted last summer on charges of conspiring to commit money laundering, conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitter and conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (in other word, to violate U.S. sanctions). Storm was arrested and released on bail. The U.S. Department of Justice, alleged that Tornado Cash facilitated the laundering of over $1 billion by groups like North Korea's Lazarus. Tornado Cash has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department multiple times now.

"Storm is a developer, and his only agreement, together with the members of his U.S-based company, was to build software solutions to provide financial privacy to legitimate cryptocurrency users," Friday night's filing in the Southern District of New York said. "This is not a crime."

Advertisement
Advertisement

The motion defines Tornado Cash, describing it as a "set of non-custodial smart contracts in which users maintain complete ownership and control over their assets without the need to rely on any service provider or other intermediary," as opposed to custodial mixing services. The filing also disputed the idea that Tornado Cash is a mixer or a service.

It took aim at how the indictment described the Tornado Cash setup and Storm's ability to influence it by the time period the indictment focuses on, saying that Storm did not have the ability to control Tornado Cash or prevent its use by Lazarus and similar entities.

Moreover, the filing said, Tornado Cash does not fit the definition of a "financial institution" because users maintain control over their funds and the protocol "did not charge any fee but was a free and open-source software tool."

Storm couldn't have conspired to launder funds or operate a money transmitter if there wasn't a Tornado Cash enterprise for him to have done these with, the filing said.

The filing also argued that Storm and other developers at Peppersec – the company set up by the developers – never made an agreement with "alleged bad actors," saying the U.S. DOJ was "conflating the agreement to develop and publish Tornado Cash code with a (non-existent) agreement to engage in purported concealment money laundering."

The charges against Storm are similar to those against fellow Tornado Cash developer Alexey Pertsev, who was arrested in August 2022 and went on trial this past week on money laundering charges. A verdict will be announced in May. Friday's filing noted that the law in the Netherlands, where Pertsev was arrested and tried, is different from the U.S. in terms of the specific charges.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Friday's motion to dismiss came shortly after Storm's legal team filed motions to have the DOJ produce certain pieces of evidence and suppress federal agents' efforts to seize Storm's crypto holdings through a search warrant.

The motion to compel asks for a judge to order the DOJ to share any communications between U.S. authorities and Dutch authorities, as well as any communications from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control or Financial Crimes Enforcement Network tied to Storm.

The motion to suppress argued that a search warrant was not the appropriate tool for the FBI to seize "any and all cryptocurrency" found in Storm's home. While the warrant "allows for the seizure of 'any and all cryptocurrency,'" this is "overbroad" and an affidavit does not "establish probable cause to believe that any and all cryptocurrency found would constitute evidence of a crime."

Leituras Relacionadas

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbitHá 1h

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbitHá 1h

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHá 4h

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHá 4h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHá 4h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHá 4h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片