Roman Storm Tornado Cash Retrial: Status and
Published 6/17/2026, 10:48:05 AM
Current Case Status
Roman Storm's retrial is scheduled to proceed on two counts where the jury deadlocked at his August 2025 trial. The government filed for retrial on March 9, 2026, with proposed start dates of October 5 or 12, 2026 (estimated 3-week duration).
Storm was convicted on one count: conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business under 18 U.S.C. § 1960, carrying a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. The jury deadlocked on two more serious charges: conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956) and conspiracy to violate IEEPA/sanctions (50 U.S.C. § 1705), each carrying up to 20 years imprisonment. Storm remains free on bail pending sentencing for the § 1960 conviction.
The defense filed a 59-page Rule 29 motion for acquittal on September 30, 2025; prosecutors responded with a 113-page opposition in November 2025. Oral argument was scheduled for April 9, 2026—the outcome could affect whether the retrial proceeds as planned.
Key Legal Precedent: Fifth Circuit Ruling
A pivotal development is the Fifth Circuit ruling in Van Loon v. Department of Treasury (November 26, 2024), which held that OFAC exceeded statutory authority by sanctioning Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts. The court found that immutable smart contracts are not "property" under IEEPA because no one can exclude anyone from using them and no rights of possession or control exist. This precedent:
- Directly influenced the acquittal on sanctions charges at Storm's trial
- Led OFAC to remove several Tornado Cash smart contract addresses from the SDN list in March 2025
- May shape the Second Circuit appeal
Implications for Developer Liability
The mixed verdict establishes several precedents for future privacy protocol developers:
| Precedent | Implication |
|---|---|
| § 1960 liability | Developers face criminal liability for operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business even for non-custodial platforms if they exercise sufficient control over infrastructure |
| Intent standard | Jury deadlock on money laundering and sanctions charges suggests difficulty proving criminal intent beyond mere knowledge of potential misuse |
| Operational control | Maintaining front-end UI and relayer infrastructure may be treated as operational involvement creating liability |
| Compliance expectations | Government argues developers failed to implement required KYC/AML controls |
Prosecution's Position
The government alleges that Tornado Cash processed over $1 billion in criminal proceeds, that Storm continued operating despite knowing criminals including North Korea's Lazarus Group used the platform, and that Storm profited over $12 million from TORN governance tokens. The prosecution argues developers maintained sufficient infrastructure control to require compliance.
Defense's Position
The defense argues Tornado Cash is open-source, non-custodial software where users retain full control of assets, and smart contracts were immutable after deployment—developers could not control usage. They analogize building neutral tools to VPNs or encrypted messaging and contend the government failed to prove agreement with criminal actors.
Practical Guidance for Future Protocol Developers
Based on the legal landscape:
- FinCEN registration may be required if operating money-transmitting infrastructure
- AML/KYC compliance at on/off ramps reduces exposure
- Documentation of safeguards and risk mitigation efforts is critical
- Decentralization (immutability, non-custodial design) provides legal protection, but operational involvement can undermine these defenses
Broader Jurisdictional Context
Alexey Pertsev, another Tornado Cash developer, was convicted in Dutch court in May 2024 and sentenced to 64 months imprisonment—demonstrating that U.S. law is not the only jurisdiction creating exposure for privacy protocol developers.
Community Support
The Ethereum Foundation pledged up to $750,000 in matching contributions to Storm's defense. Vitalik Buterin published an open letter in January 2026 calling for leniency. Coin Center filed an amicus brief supporting dismissal.
Conclusion
Roman Storm's retrial (scheduled October 2026) will test whether the Fifth Circuit's favorable precedent on immutable contracts extends to operational liability under § 1960 and money laundering statutes. The outcome is not yet determined—the Rule 29 motion and retrial could reduce charges, affirm convictions, or establish new precedent. What is clear is that the legal framework is shifting from sanctioning code to targeting developers, with operational involvement and infrastructure control emerging as key liability determinants. For future privacy protocols, the case underscores that decentralization architecture alone may be insufficient; operational discipline around compliance at on/off ramps and documentation of good-faith risk mitigation are increasingly necessary.
What remains open: Whether the Rule 29 motion succeeds, whether the retrial produces convictions on the deadlocked counts, and how the Second Circuit resolves any appeal of the sanctions-related charges.