DOJ’s Tornado Cash Arguments: Lawyer Highlights Disdain for Privacy

The United States is facing criticism for its case against crypto mixer Tornado Cash and developer Roman Storm, with accusations of a “disdain for privacy” and “egregious statements” from Amanda Tuminelli, the legal chief of DeFi Education Fund. On April 26, the Department of Justice opposed Storm’s motion to dismiss conspiracy and money laundering charges, prompting Tuminelli to highlight technical inaccuracies and a lack of understanding of privacy and emerging technology. Tuminelli also pointed out a section where the DOJ misrepresented Storm’s argument, accusing them of intentionally misleading the court. Tuminelli criticized the prosecutors for ignoring the arguments presented in the DeFi Education Fund’s amicus brief in support of Storm’s dismissal.

Observers have noted that a particular section of the DOJ’s response could have significant implications for crypto and internet freedom. The DOJ argued that the money transmitting definition under US law does not require control of the funds being transferred and extends to any means of transferring funds on behalf of the public. This broad argument, according to industry commentator L0la L33tz, could threaten the freedom of the internet and subject providers, including internet service providers, to increased Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements. Financial writer John Paul Koning suggests that the case against Storm could become a crucial moment in the crypto space, determining who is liable for smart contracts and the interfaces that access them.

Crypto-focused lawyer Gabriel Shapiro remains unconcerned about the DOJ’s arguments, believing that the case will focus on the relayers and Tornado Cash’s TORN token. According to Shapiro, relayers that facilitated transactions on Ethereum and Tornado Cash, which provided a financial interest in the relaying enterprise, are the main parties at risk of being considered money transmitters. He argues that most decentralized applications (DApps) involve users transacting on Ethereum without involvement from the operators of the DApps themselves.

Storm’s trial is scheduled for September, while co-founder Roman Semenov is currently at large.

6 thoughts on “DOJ’s Tornado Cash Arguments: Lawyer Highlights Disdain for Privacy

  1. Fingers crossed for a fair trial in September. It’s important that the legal system understands the intricacies of the crypto space and upholds privacy rights! 🤞💻

  2. The case against Storm could have broader implications for the entire crypto industry. Let’s hope it leads to clearer regulations and guidelines for future developments.

  3. The DOJ’s broad argument about money transmitting definition is worrisome . We need to ensure that internet freedom is not compromised.

  4. Kudos to Amanda Tuminelli for shedding light on the prosecutor’s intentional misrepresentation. We need transparency and integrity in legal proceedings! 🔍🤝

  5. It’s reassuring to see Gabriel Shapiro’s confidence in the case and its focus on the relayers. Let’s hope justice is served and the right parties are held accountable!

  6. I applaud Amanda Tuminelli for standing up against the DOJ’s lack of understanding of privacy and emerging tech! It’s important to have knowledgeable voices in legal discussions.

Leave a Reply