Trial Of Tornado Cash Co-Founder Delayed Till April 2025 Amid Dispute Over Expert Witness

The criminal trial of Roman Storm, a developer and co-founder of Tornado Cash, has been postponed until April 2025. In 2023, federal prosecutors charged Storm and his Tornado Cash co-founder, Roman Semenov, with conspiracy related to money laundering.

More articles

Meghna Chowdhury
Meghna Chowdhury
Meghna is a Journalism graduate with specialisation in Print Journalism. She is currently pursuing a Master's Degree in journalism and mass communication. With over 3.5 years of experience in the Web3 and cryptocurrency space, she is working as a Senior Crypto Journalist for UnoCrypto. She is dedicated to delivering quality journalism and informative insights in her field. Apart from business and finance articles, horror is her favourite genre.

The criminal trial of Roman Storm, a developer and co-founder of Tornado Cash, has been postponed until April 2025, after a New York judge ruled on Friday to delay the proceedings. The trial, originally scheduled for December 2024, will now allow both parties additional time to resolve a dispute over expert witness disclosures. 

The conflict arose after Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) mandated that both the prosecution and defence exchange information on potential expert witnesses.

Also read: US Moves to Seize $2.67 Million in Crypto Stolen by North Korean Lazarus Group

What was Roman Storm Charged For?

In 2023, federal prosecutors charged Storm and his Tornado Cash co-founder, Roman Semenov, with conspiracy related to money laundering, sanctions violations, and operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. The charges led to a backlash within the crypto community, with many criticizing the government’s approach to regulating DeFi tools.

Storm’s defence team, led by attorney Brian Klein from Waymaker LLP, objected to Judge Failla’s disclosure order. In an October 14 filing, Klein argued that forcing the defence to reveal its expert witnesses would compromise their strategy and “greatly prejudice Mr. Storm.” 

According to Klein, the disclosure requirement might violate federal criminal procedure rules, which only compel witness sharing if both sides request it. Storm’s legal team deliberately avoided making such a request to protect the confidentiality of their witness lineup.

The History of the Tornado Cash

The controversy surrounding Tornado Cash intensified in August 2022, when the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added the mixing service to its Specially Designated Nationals list. 

OFAC’s designation effectively banned U.S. citizens from using Tornado Cash, citing that the platform failed to implement adequate anti-money laundering measures, thereby enabling cybercriminals to move illicit funds anonymously.

In an attempt to overturn Judge Failla’s order, Storm’s legal team has filed a mandamus petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A mandamus petition is a request for a court order from a higher court to a lower court to essentially force them to comply with a law or discontinue a particular unlawful action. 

If the appeals court rules in Storm’s favour, it could set a precedent for how defence teams manage expert witness disclosures in future criminal cases involving crypto technologies.

The case highlights a broader legal debate over privacy, decentralized technologies, and the balance between government oversight and individual rights in financial innovations.

The trial, now rescheduled to begin on April 14, 2025, is anticipated to last for about two weeks. The delay offers both sides more time to prepare their cases and could impact similar cases where crypto developers face scrutiny for creating tools that authorities argue can be used to circumvent regulations.

The Tornado Cash case has become a focal point for the crypto industry as it grapples with increasingly stringent regulations. Supporters argue that developers should not be held liable for how users deploy decentralized tools, while critics emphasize the need for accountability, especially where technology may facilitate illegal activities.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest