DOJ Exempt from Reviewing Records
The federal judge overseeing Roman Storm’s prosecution has declined to order the Department of Justice to review its records for any materials it might have missed that would help the Tornado Cash developer. This decision came at the end of a 30-minute hearing on Friday morning, with Judge Katherine Polk Failla stating that she told the government it should not have any disclosure issues.
Judge Failla also ruled that there were no Brady violation concerns with the Department of Justice’s conversations with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) about whether mixers needed to register as money transmitters. This conversation, which involved prosecutors pursuing Samourai Wallet developers and FinCEN officials, did not include the prosecutors on Storm’s case. A DOJ representative mentioned this in the phone conference on Friday.
If the judge had found that prosecutors had withheld information, it could have significantly affected the case moving forward. However, she noted, “I’m not going to require a further review based on the representations made that there’s no additional material of this type, and based on my views that I don’t believe the material was exculpatory.” The judge highlighted the difference between wanting to know something and it being a Brady violation, referencing a Supreme Court precedent that requires prosecutors to share any and all information that might help a defendant with the defendant’s team.
Storm’s defense attorneys argued during the hearing that they needed to know when the prosecutors in their case learned about the FinCEN conversation. Defense attorney Brian Klein pointed out that the prosecution plans to charge a conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter, questioning who they are supposed to be licensed with. This, Klein argued, is part of the same issue, as they’ve only dropped one subpart but are still charging an unlicensed money business.
Thane Rehn, a prosecutor who worked on the DOJ case against Sam Bankman-Fried, clarified that his team wouldn’t argue that Tornado Cash needed to secure a license. Instead, they intend to prove at trial that the defendant knew they were transmitting funds derived from criminals. The word ‘license’ doesn’t apply here, and the jury won’t be instructed on licensing issues, Rehn explained.
The judge did ask the prosecutors if they planned to change any other theories or charges in the weeks leading up to the trial, emphasizing that doing so might be unfair to the defense. With the trial set to kick off in less than two months, the proceedings are under close scrutiny. The Department of Justice’s pursuit of the Roman Storm case, despite the Blanche memo, indicates a firm stance on the matter. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how the prosecution’s strategies evolve, particularly in light of the licensing issue and the forthcoming trial. The Department of Justice’s stance on licensing and its implications for Tornado Cash and similar entities will undoubtedly be a focal point. With the trial’s rapid approach, the defense and prosecution are preparing for a potentially landmark case that could set precedents for crypto regulations and legal standards. The intricacies of the case, including the role of FinCEN and the application of the Brady rule, highlight the complex legal landscape surrounding cryptocurrency and financial transactions. As the legal community and the public await the trial’s outcome, the case is poised to contribute significantly to the evolving discourse on crypto legislation and the future of digital currency transactions.