Roman Storm Accuses DOJ of Misrepresenting Evidence in Tornado Cash Trial

A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding in the U.S. judicial system, spotlighting the complex interplay between decentralized finance and regulatory oversight. Roman Storm, co-founder of the cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash, through his defense team, has accused the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of submitting misrepresented evidence in his ongoing trial. This contention centers on a crucial piece of Telegram communication, which attorneys argue was presented out of context, potentially misleading the grand jury and raising significant questions about adherence to federal rules of evidence.

• Roman Storm, co-founder of Tornado Cash, is currently on trial, facing charges including conspiracy to commit money laundering.
• His defense team alleges the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) misrepresented a key Telegram message to the grand jury.
• The dispute centers on a 2020 message, which the defense claims was a forwarded inquiry from a journalist, not an original statement by developers.
• The defense asserts initial Telegram chat logs provided by the prosecution in September 2023 were incomplete, lacking crucial metadata.
• A corrected version of these logs, revealing the discrepancy, was reportedly received by the defense in December 2024.
• The prosecution acknowledges a formatting inaccuracy but maintains the defense had accurate data and characterizes the protest as an obstruction attempt.

Allegations of Evidentiary Misrepresentation

The crux of the defense’s argument revolves around a message from 2020, originally forwarded by fellow developer and defendant Alexey Pertsev. This message contained a journalist’s inquiry regarding Tornado Cash’s potential susceptibility to money laundering activities. According to Storm’s lawyers, the prosecution inaccurately presented this forwarded query to the grand jury, framing it as an original statement or initiative directly from the developers themselves. This alleged misattribution, they contend, fundamentally distorted the message’s intent and origin, potentially swaying the grand jury’s perceptions.

Discrepancies in Digital Evidence

The heart of the evidentiary dispute lies in the metadata of the Telegram chat logs. The defense contends that the initial logs provided by the prosecution in September 2023 were incomplete, notably lacking critical information indicating that the contentious message was forwarded rather than directly authored by an accused party. It was not until December 2024 that the defense reportedly received a corrected version of these logs, which publicly exposed the alleged discrepancy. While the prosecution has acknowledged the formatting inaccuracy, it maintains that the defense received accurate data well before the trial commenced. The DOJ characterizes the current protest as a belated attempt to obstruct proceedings, arguing that mere formatting errors do not undermine the evidence’s authenticity or admissibility.

However, Storm’s legal team vigorously refutes this assertion, emphasizing that the absence of proper attribution violates federal rules for authenticating digital evidence. Legal expert Andrew Rossow highlighted that the prosecution’s recent admission could substantially bolster the defense’s stance. This aligns with the precedent set by Brady v. Maryland, which mandates that the prosecution must timely disclose any errors or exculpatory information within its presented evidence, underscoring the imperative for transparency and accuracy in legal proceedings.

The Ongoing Legal Battle

Roman Storm faces charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and violating sanctions, stemming from his involvement in the creation of Tornado Cash, a decentralized protocol designed for enhancing transaction privacy on blockchain networks. Although some initial charges have reportedly been dropped, U.S. authorities persist in prosecuting the money laundering allegations. As of the publication of this report, the U.S. Department of Justice has yet to issue a public comment on the matter. Storm’s legal representation, provided by Waymaker LLP and Hecker Fink LLP, continues to advocate for the exclusion of the disputed evidence, arguing it constitutes a “distorted interpretation of a forwarded message” that could prejudice the jury. The outcome of this evidentiary challenge could significantly influence the trajectory of this landmark case, setting a crucial precedent for future legal interpretations of decentralized finance technologies.