In a dramatic turn in the ongoing legal battle against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, his legal team has accused federal prosecutors of concealing key evidence that could potentially exonerate him. The revelation adds new weight to an already controversial case and draws a parallel with similar legal proceedings against other crypto mixer developers, particularly those behind Samourai Wallet.
The Core of the Dispute: FinCEN Guidance
At the heart of the dispute lies a set of documents and communications from the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which Storm’s attorneys argue contradict the basis of the prosecution’s case. These documents reportedly affirm that non-custodial crypto mixers, like Tornado Cash, do not meet the legal definition of a “money transmitting business”—a pivotal classification that could dramatically alter the trajectory of the case.
In a letter submitted to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla on May 16, Storm’s attorneys argued that the government had long been aware of FinCEN’s stance but chose to press ahead with charges anyway. This, they claimed, undermines the integrity of the prosecution and raises concerns about due process.
“The disclosures in the Samourai case reveal that the government, at the very least, played fast and loose and, at worst, affirmatively misled this Court with its arguments about FinCEN guidance,” the defense letter stated.
A Pattern of Aggressive Prosecution?
Storm’s legal team is now seeking reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision not to dismiss the case. Their argument is bolstered by the fact that the same FinCEN documents were used by attorneys representing the developers of Samourai Wallet, another privacy-focused crypto project targeted by U.S. authorities.
Despite the government’s insistence that the two cases are only “superficially similar,” both revolve around cryptocurrency mixing tools that emphasize user privacy without taking custody of user funds. That distinction—custodial versus non-custodial—is critical in determining whether such platforms are subject to money transmission laws.
Government Response: No Evidence Withheld?
Prosecutors have denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the FinCEN communications were provided to both the defense and the court during the legal discovery phase, as required by law. But Storm’s legal team maintains that the government either failed to highlight the significance of the FinCEN guidance or strategically downplayed it in order to sustain the case.
Whether the omission was intentional or a result of bureaucratic oversight, the implications are significant. If the court finds that exculpatory evidence was knowingly withheld or misrepresented, it could call into question not only this prosecution but also the broader legal strategy being applied to privacy tools in the crypto space.
Legal Landscape: Precedent Already Set?
Adding another twist, a ruling in April by Federal Judge Robert Pitman determined that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) could not reimpose sanctions on Tornado Cash. That ruling set a meaningful legal precedent for how non-custodial tools are treated under U.S. law. However, prosecutors have continued to pursue Storm, albeit with modified charges that reflect the evolving legal environment.
The Bigger Picture: Privacy, Policy, and Prosecution
The stakes in Roman Storm’s case extend far beyond a single developer. It’s a legal showdown that could shape the future of open-source privacy tools and determine how aggressively governments can pursue developers whose software emphasizes anonymity.
As the crypto industry watches closely, this case serves as a litmus test for the balance between financial privacy and regulatory oversight in an increasingly digital financial ecosystem.
Storm’s trial is ongoing, but one thing is clear: the courtroom battle over Tornado Cash is about more than just one man—it’s about the future of privacy in the crypto age.
4o
