QUICK TAKE:

• Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm’s defense has filed final pretrial motions to dismiss charges and challenge evidence.
• The defense argues the indictment is an example of prosecutorial overreach and criticizes the seizure of cryptocurrency as a Fourth Amendment violation.
• The defense claims the government failed to prove Storm’s active involvement in the alleged crimes.

Roman Storm’s Defense Argues Prosecutorial Overreach in Tornado Cash Case

Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm’s defense team has filed a series of final pretrial motions aiming to dismiss charges and contest the evidence presented by the government. They argue that the indictment reflects prosecutorial overreach and label the seizure of cryptocurrency from Storm’s residence a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Storm’s defense team submitted these motions following the government’s response to their initial motion to dismiss the trial. The defense’s reply, filed on Friday, reiterates that the case against Storm should be dismissed, arguing that the government has not sufficiently demonstrated Storm’s active participation in the alleged crimes.

Allegations of Prosecutorial Overreach

The defense contends that by the time Tornado Cash was allegedly misused by criminals, the protocol was immutable and accessible to anyone with an internet connection. “In fact, by the time criminals allegedly began misusing it, the Tornado Cash protocol was, as the government concedes, immutable and available to anyone with an Internet connection,” the motion states.

Mischaracterization of Tornado Cash

A significant part of the filing challenges the government’s portrayal of Tornado Cash as a “money transmitting business.” This characterization has drawn attention from Senators Ron Wyden and Cynthia Lummis, who argued against the government’s interpretation of the term in a letter included in Storm’s motion. Storm’s lawyers assert that this mischaracterization violates due process and legal norms, stating that labeling Tornado as a money transmitter “…runs afoul of due process, the rule of lenity and the rule against novel constructions.”

Fourth Amendment Violations

Storm’s defense also targets the government’s seizure of his cryptocurrency hard wallets, describing it as a “wholesale assault on the Fourth Amendment.” They argue that the government’s use of Storm’s private keys to search the blockchain and seize cryptocurrency without clear evidence linking it to illegal activity is unjustified. “The government should not be permitted to use Mr. Storm’s private keys to rifle around the blockchain to seize ‘any and all’ of what it believes is Mr. Storm’s cryptocurrency and transfer that cryptocurrency to its own wallets,” the motion argues. The defense emphasizes that the government admitted uncertainty in connecting any recovered cryptocurrency to the alleged crimes, describing the action as a “fishing expedition.”

Support from Crypto Advocacy Groups

Storm’s motion to dismiss has received backing from three crypto advocacy groups, which have filed amicus briefs in support. His cause has also garnered significant attention and financial support from the crypto community, with investors raising millions for his defense.

Government’s Opposition

Despite the defense’s robust arguments, the government remains firm in its stance. In its filing opposing Storm’s motion to dismiss, the government highlights the rarity of pretrial dismissals in such cases. “Indeed, the vast majority of the defendants’ arguments in favor of dismissal of the Indictment consist of factual assertions that are more appropriate for a jury address than a motion claiming that the Indictment is on its face legally insufficient,” prosecutors argued.

Upcoming Hearing

Roman Storm’s motion hearing is scheduled for July 12 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in New York City. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether the case proceeds to trial or if the charges against Storm will be dismissed.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case continues to be a focal point for discussions on the regulatory landscape of cryptocurrency and the legal boundaries of prosecutorial reach in digital finance.