tl;dr
Roman Storm’s lawyers may file a motion for a mistrial, arguing the prosecution has not proven Tornado Cash’s involvement in alleged cybercrimes. The defense challenged testimony linking Tornado Cash to stolen funds in a scam, citing lack of on-chain evidence. The case is significant for defining le...
Roman Storm’s lawyers announced Monday that they might file a motion for a mistrial, citing alleged weaknesses in the prosecution’s case against their client. They claim the U.S. government has yet to prove that Tornado Cash was involved in any of the cybercrimes described by the prosecution’s witnesses. The prosecution, however, stated its intention to clarify its case against Storm in the upcoming days.
The defense raised the prospect of a mistrial during proceedings in federal court in New York, following testimony that seemed tenuously linked to Tornado Cash, Storm’s privacy-focused Ethereum mixing service. A mistrial could result from judicial errors or misconduct, potentially leading to dismissal or retrial with a different judge and jury.
This discussion arose shortly after Hanfeng Lin, a Taiwan-born witness, testified that she lost approximately $250,000 in a “pig butchering” scam in 2021. Lin claimed some of her stolen funds had passed through Tornado Cash after using a crypto recovery service named Payback. Storm’s legal team challenged this claim, asserting on-chain evidence does not support the involvement of Tornado Cash in Lin’s transactions.
Blockchain experts have shown keen interest in Storm’s trial, which is seen as pivotal in defining legal responsibilities for coders under U.S. law. Supporters within the cypherpunk community view the case as emblematic of the broader struggle to protect privacy technologies in the face of governmental restrictions, especially when these technologies conflict with public safety objectives.
Storm faces charges including operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, sanction violations, and conspiracy to launder money, carrying a possible sentence of 45 years if convicted on all counts. Yet, prominent on-chain analysts like Taylor Monahan of MetaMask and the pseudonymous ZachXBT have publicly questioned the prosecution’s evidence. Monahan’s analysis showed no indication that Lin’s funds flowed through Tornado Cash, and she criticized Payback’s efficacy.
The lack of regulation for blockchain sleuth services has compounded concerns, given the FBI’s San Diego office previously seized Payback’s website amid suspicions of fraudulent practices. Despite these challenges, the prosecution vowed to present forthcoming expert testimony from IRS Agent George to establish a connection between Lin’s funds and Tornado Cash.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla remarked on the unusual lack of communication in the case, highlighting the tension between the defense’s mistrial threat and the government’s evidence plans. The trial remains a critical juncture for privacy technology legal precedents and the broader cryptocurrency community’s future.