Roman Storm’s legal team is demanding transparency from the U.S. Department of Justice, questioning whether any crucial information is being withheld that could influence the case against the Tornado Cash developer. In a late Friday letter, Storm’s attorneys highlighted concerns raised by recent disclosures in a similar case involving cryptocurrency mixers, suggesting that prosecutors may have misled the judge or acted irresponsibly.
According to the filing, the defense recently discovered that the government has possessed exculpatory evidence since August 2023 that challenges a core issue in Storm’s case: whether noncustodial cryptocurrency mixers qualify as a “money transmitting business” under 18 U.S.C. § 1960. The attorneys argue that the DOJ’s failure to produce this evidence during the fall of 2023—when Storm was indicted and first appeared in court—constitutes a Brady violation, which has significantly prejudiced Storm’s ability to defend himself, even after the DOJ claimed it would drop part of its case.
The defense references the DOJ’s case against two developers of Samourai Wallet, another crypto mixer, where prosecutors delayed sharing information from FinCEN officials who indicated that the mixer did not resemble a traditional money transmitter. Although prosecutors denied any misconduct, asserting disclosures were timely and that the FinCEN officials’ views lacked formal guidance, Storm’s team believes the cases are only “superficially similar.” In reality, both cases hinge on the noncustodial nature of these protocols, where users maintain control over their assets—a key issue in Storm’s motion to dismiss and in uncovering relevant FinCEN materials.
The attorneys are urging Judge Katherine Polk Failla to order the DOJ to review all potentially helpful materials in Storm’s case. They also seek transparency regarding when prosecutors first learned about the FinCEN-related documents referenced in the Samourai Wallet case. This move aims to ensure a fair process and prevent any further withholding of critical evidence that could impact the outcome.
