Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
It was not the legal doctrine of the US Department of Justice in The Case of the Roman Storm There has never been a perception regarding cryptocurrencies that writing code is a crime in itself. Instead, it focuses on the idea that managing a platform that uses more than $1 billion in illegal money – and categorically refuses to implement measures to combat money laundering – is a control of the criminal enterprise.
This difference is the method that makes this issue more important than the Tornado Cash platform.
Prosecutors filed a letter Tuesday denying Storm’s attempt to appeal the Supreme Court’s March ruling on the case. Sony Music v. Cox Communications As a reason to dismiss the charges. The Ministry of Justice has called this measure “inadequate,” and the reason for this refusal refers precisely to the degree of involvement of those who make it that would make the government responsible for the crimes that have been established here.
The immediate question is: Where are the minimum rules for DeFi developers to change protocols, manage governance, and selectively respond to outcomes? As of Tuesday’s filing, the line was still unknown, and prosecutors want Storm’s trial to be where the line was drawn.
Important points:
- To try to remove the charges: Storm’s attorneys cited the Supreme Court’s Cox decision — which shielded an Internet service provider from liability for violating users’ rights — as an example of how to get rid of the charges. Justice Department critics rejected the analogy as inconsistent with Storm’s character.
- Control argument: Prosecutors documented more than 250 changes made to Tornado Cash during the trial, directly contradicting Storm’s defense that the protocol was immutable without its authority. This work history is very important in an embezzlement case.
- A little impression: In August 2025, a jury convicted Mkutho of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed business, but did not reach a verdict on conspiracy to steal money and evade sanctions – two charges that prosecutors plan to retry in October 2026.
- Past privacy policies: The Department of Justice’s correction – that developers who modify and deliberately ignore the procedures followed by operators and not mere observers – applies directly to the DeFi protocol that can be modified by the founders or large groups.
- Legal risks: Storm faces 40-45 years in prison if convicted of all charges. The retrial includes two pending cases, where the remittance decision is still pending.
- Observations: The meeting between Storm’s defense and the court of Judge Katherine Polk Failla will determine whether October 2026 will be the last date for the case to come back.
What does the Justice Department’s rejection of Cox prove — and why is the “code immutable” defense losing its effectiveness?
Storm’s legal team also compared: The Supreme Court found that Cox Communications should not be held liable for breach of user rights because it had a strong and effective 98% termination policy for repeat users. The argument was that Storm, like Cox, was merely a neutral support provider. But prosecutors ended that comparison in one filing.
The Justice Department’s letter to Judge Failla confirmed that Cox Inc I fought quickly illegal behavior is taking place on its network, while Storm and his colleagues at Tornado Cash did the opposite.
Prosecutors said that Storm “absolutely lied in response to their inquiries, told them that they had no control over the process when he and his colleagues made more than 250 changes to the Tornado Cash process during the period in question, and openly discussed – but abandoned – ways to reduce crime on their platform.”
This last paragraph is the legal basis. Under anti-money laundering and anti-money laundering laws, the question is not whether the developer wrote the software, but whether he ran a system that he knew was being used. Steal moneyhe had the power to prevent this use, and he chose not to.
Anti-money laundering responsibilities under the Bank Secrecy Act lie with employees, not just watchdogs. The plaintiffs allege that Storm was, of all things, hired.
“In short, the defendant’s response to the use of his company was deeply disturbing,” the plaintiffs’ letter to Judge Failla, wrote Tuesday.
An August 2025 jury verdict in the wire fraud case denied that Storm had framed himself as the wrongdoer. The retrial in October 2026 will focus specifically on charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and evasion – charges that the jury stayed and did not acquit him. This distinction is important: a failure means that twelve jurors did not agree, not that the evidence was insufficient to convict.
A note Tornado Money Case: The Justice Department has denied Roman Storm’s request to drop the charges appeared for the first time Cryptonews Arabic.
