Crypto : American Justice Keeps Pressure on Tornado Cash Co-Founder

Judicial pressure on Roman Storm does not subside. American federal prosecutors refuse to drop the Tornado Cash case and, for now, close the door to a quick exit for its co-founder. The signal sent to the crypto market remains clear from the start. Even after a partially blocked trial in 2025, even after the change of tone displayed by the Department of Justice on certain digital asset cases, the federal camp continues to move forward.

A Case That Refuses to Close

The Storm case is therefore not slipping into oblivion. It returns to the center of the debate on developers’ responsibility regarding the criminal use of their code. The heart of the sequence boils down to a simple sentence: prosecutors from the Southern District of New York believe that Roman Storm’s defense justifies neither dropping the charges nor broad acquittal. In their recent response, they reject the idea that a Supreme Court decision on copyright could weaken their criminal case.

Storm had nevertheless tried to use the ruling Cox v. Sony Music Entertainment as support. In this March 25, 2026 decision, the Supreme Court tightened the logic of contributory liability in copyright matters, stating that a service provider can only be held responsible if it intended to promote the infringement, or if its service was adapted to that infringement.

But for the prosecution, the parallel does not hold. Prosecutors consider that this civil case about copyright violation does not resemble the Tornado Cash case, where the issue concerns alleged money laundering and sanctions violations. In other words, Storm is trying to open a doctrinal breach, while the prosecution keeps the debate squarely in criminal law.

Why the Storm Case Remains Explosive for Crypto

This case goes far beyond Roman Storm’s personal case. In August 2025, a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmission business. However, this same jury failed to decide on two much more serious counts: conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to violate sanctions.

This is precisely where political and legal tension intensifies. For part of the ecosystem, the case raises a daunting question: how far can a developer be held responsible for an open source protocol they no longer really control once deployed? For the prosecution, the answer relies less on theory and more on intent, knowledge of criminal uses, and the absence of safeguards deemed effective.

The DOJ has long reiterated its interpretation of the case. In its August 2025 statement, the SDNY prosecutor’s office stated that the Tornado Cash crypto platform facilitated over a billion dollars in illicit transactions, with presumed knowledge of several criminal uses, including flows linked to the North Korean Lazarus group. This narrative basis clearly remains intact.