Crypto advocacy groups are rallying behind Roman Storm, the developer of Tornado Cash, in his legal battle against charges related to his role in the Ethereum privacy protocol. Storm recently filed a motion to drop the charges against him, arguing that the government’s understanding of Tornado Cash’s service and blockchain technology is flawed. Three prominent pro-crypto organizations, Coin Center, the Blockchain Association, and the DeFi Education Fund, have filed amicus briefs in support of Storm, all making similar arguments against the government’s indictment.
The government’s indictment alleges that Storm and his co-founder engaged in the business of transferring funds on behalf of the public without registering Tornado Cash with FinCEN, leading to the charge of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. However, the Blockchain Association’s brief highlights that FinCEN’s definitions contradict this characterization, stating that intermediaries can only be liable as money transmitters if they exercise total independent control over the assets, which is not the case with Tornado Cash. The brief warns that if the government’s interpretation stands, it would essentially ban anonymizing protocols and make compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act impossible for developers.
Coin Center’s brief focuses on arguments against the count of conspiracy to violate the IEEPA and provides a First Amendment defense, arguing that the conspiracy count should not hold up since decisions regarding Tornado Cash’s functionality and release were made before any knowledge of alleged sanctions violations. The brief draws an analogy to developers of the Linux open-source operating system, suggesting that it would be like suggesting they confederated with a regime merely by releasing a valuable computing tool that the regime later used for its own purposes. The DeFi Education Fund’s brief also challenges the charges and presents a concerning scenario, stating that validating the theories of liability put forward by the government could grant them unlimited power to prosecute software developers for code that is later used by third parties for nefarious purposes.
The lack of a limiting principle in place could expose developers of open-source software to criminal liability for activities beyond their control years or even decades later. At present, government prosecutors have not responded to Storm’s motion to dismiss the charges, leaving the case pending. As Storm continues to fight against the charges and advocate for the understanding of blockchain technology and privacy protocols, the support of crypto advocacy groups is crucial in ensuring fair treatment and protection for developers in the crypto space. The outcome of Storm’s legal battle could have significant implications for the future of anonymity protocols and open-source software development in the crypto community.
