Roman Storm, co-founder of Tornado Cash, described his prosecution in a Jan. 22 X post as a “terrifying criminalization of privacy.” Tornado Cash is a non-custodial privacy protocol facilitating private crypto transactions via open-source code.
He stated:
“I am being prosecuted for writing open-source code that enables private crypto transactions in a completely non-custodial manner […] The charges against me threaten to criminalize software development itself.”
Storm is charged with operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and sanctions evasion. He was arrested on Aug. 23, 2023, and his trial is set for April 14, 2025.
The impact of the case is already apparent. Storm noted that another developer, Michael Lewellen, recently filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking relief from fears of releasing new software in the wake of Storm’s prosecution.
The Lewellen lawsuit addresses the same reasoning the DOJ used to prosecute the developers of Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet. This reasoning could have broad implications, as it could result in criminalizing software development.
Storm’s statement comes after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to remove Tornado Cash-linked addresses from its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list.
Furthermore, the ruling highlighted that sanctioning the protocol does not block bad actors from using it, as smart contracts are autonomous and cannot be owned, controlled, or altered.
The court also suggested updating legislation to regulate the use of crypto-mixers. As a result, the current legal framework should not restrict applications such as Tornado Cash from operating autonomously.
On Nov. 26, the US Court of Appeals had already determined that the Treasury exceeded its authority by sanctioning Tornado Cash’s immutable smart contracts. The legal win motivated Storm to file a motion on Dec. 20 requesting the dismissal of the criminal charges against him.
Support from Vitalik Buterin
In a separate social media post, Storm thanked Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin for supporting his and fellow Tornado Cash developer Alexey Pertsev’s cases.
Buterin replied that Tornado Cash was built with his support, and failing to support its developers would “violate basic honor.”
The Ethereum co-founder added:
“In Ethereum we protect our own, and uphold our honor.”
The issue with Section 1960
Storm also highlighted confusion surrounding the Section 1960 charge of operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. He pointed to conflicting interpretations of the law by different government agencies, which have muddied the waters of compliance and regulation for developers like himself.
Amanda Tuminelli, the Chief Legal Officer at the DeFi Education Fund, raised concerns about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) interpretation of Section 1960 in December 2024.
Tuminelli argued that Section 1960 had been poorly drafted and amended haphazardly, leading to legal ambiguities and conflicting interpretations. The paper outlined the statute’s historical evolution and highlighted its “complicated” and “peculiar” language, which courts have criticized for being difficult to interpret.
Additionally, she asserted that protocols like Tornado Cash, which are non-custodial and do not control user funds, should not fall within the statute’s scope. Using the Roman Storm case as a study, she emphasizes that self-custodial protocols cannot be classified as “money-transmitting businesses” under the statute’s plain language.
Tuminelli further explored the interplay between Section 1960 and definitions under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), arguing that both share a fundamental requirement: an entity must gain and relinquish control over funds to qualify as a money transmitter.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy commented that authorities should not go after developers but rather chase bad actors who are breaking existing laws.
The post Tornado Cash developer calls his lawsuit a ‘terrifying criminalization of privacy’ appeared first on CryptoSlate.
