A coalition of crypto firms has urged Congress to press the Department of Justice to amend an “unprecedented and overly expansive” interpretation of laws that were used to charge the developers of the crypto mixer Tornado Cash.
A March 26 letter signed by 34 crypto companies and advocate groups sent to the Senate Banking Committee, House Financial Services Committee and the House and Senate judiciary committees said the DOJ’s take on unlicensed money-transmitting business means “essentially every blockchain developer could be prosecuted as a criminal.”
The letter — led by the DeFi Education Fund and signed by the likes of Kraken and Coinbase — added that the Justice Department’s interpretation “creates confusion and ambiguity” and “threatens the viability of U.S.-based software development in the digital asset industry.”
The group said the DOJ debuted its position “in August 2023 via criminal indictment” — the same time it charged Tornado Cash developers Roman Storm and Roman Semenov with money laundering.
Storm has been released on bail, has pleaded not guilty and wants the charges dropped. Semenov, a Russian national, is at large.
The DOJ has filed similar charges against Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, who have both pleaded not guilty.
The crypto group’s letter argued that two sections of the US Code define a “money transmitting business” — Title 31 section 5330, defining who must be licensed and Title 18 section 1960, which criminalizes operating unlicensed.
It added that 2019 guidance from the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) gave examples of what money-transmitting activities and said that “if a software developer never obtains possession or control over customer funds, that developer is not operating a ‘money transmitting business.’”
The letter argued that the DOJ had taken a position that the definition of a money transmitting business under section 5330 “is not relevant to determining whether someone is operating an unlicensed ‘money transmitting business’ under Section 1960” despite the “intentional similarity” in both sections and FinCEN’s guidance.
The group accused the DOJ of ignoring both FinCEN’s guidance and parts of the law to pursue its own interpretation of a money-transmitting business when it charged Storm and Semenov.
They said the result had seen “two separate US government agencies with conflicting interpretations of ‘money transmission’ — an unclear, unfair position for law-abiding industry participants and innovators.”
The letter said that if not addressed, the Justice Department’s interpretation would expose non-custodial software developers “within the reach of the U.S. to criminal liability.”
“The resulting, and very rational, fear among developers would effectively end the development of these technologies in the United States.”
In January, Michael Lewellen, a fellow of the crypto advocacy group Coin Center, sued Attorney General Merrick Garland to have his planned release of non-custodial software declared legal and to block the DOJ from using money transmitting laws to prosecute him.
Lewellen said the DOJ “has begun criminally prosecuting people for publishing similar cryptocurrency software,” which he claims extended the interpretation of money-transmitting laws “beyond what the Constitution allows.”
Based on an evaluation between December 2023 and January 2025, the IRS Criminal Investigation did not always follow guidelines around seizing and holding crypto in cases.
The chancellor has said she was having a “tough day” yesterday in her first public comments since appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions – but insisted she is “totally” up for the job.
Rachel Reeves told broadcasters: “Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I’m not going to go into the details of that.
“My job as chancellor at 12 o’clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the prime minister, supporting the government, and that’s what I tried to do.
“I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers’ is that when I’m having a tough day it’s on the telly and most people don’t have to deal with that.”
She declined to give a reason behind the tears, saying “it was a personal issue” and “it wouldn’t be right” to divulge it.
“People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job,” she added.
More on Rachel Reeves
Related Topics:
Ms Reeves also said she is “totally” up for the job of chancellor, saying: “This is the job that I’ve always wanted to do. I’m proud of what I’ve delivered as chancellor.”
Image: Reeves was seen wiping away tears during PMQs. Pic: PA
Asked if she was surprised that Sir Keir Starmer did not back her more strongly during PMQs, she reiterated that she and the prime minister are a “team”, saying: “We fought the election together, we changed the Labour Party together so that we could be in the position to return to power, and over the past year, we’ve worked in lockstep together.”
PM: ‘I was last to appreciate’ that Reeves was crying
The chancellor’s comments come after the prime minister told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby that he “didn’t appreciate” that she was crying behind him at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday because the weekly sessions are “pretty wild”, which is why he did not offer her any support while in the chamber.
He added: “It wasn’t just yesterday – no prime minister ever has had side conversations during PMQs. It does happen in other debates when there’s a bit more time, but in PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang. That’s what it was yesterday.
“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:03
Starmer explains to Beth Rigby his reaction to Reeves crying in PMQs
During PMQs, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill, leaving a “black hole” in the public finances.
The prime minister’s watered-down Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill was backed by a majority of 75 in a tense vote on Tuesday evening – but a total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill, which was the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s lone parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
Reeves looks transformed – but this has been a disastrous week for the PM
It is a Rachel Reeves transformed that appears in front of the cameras today, nearly 24 hours since one of the most extraordinary PMQs.
Was there a hint of nervousness as she started, aware of the world watching for any signs of human emotion? Was there a touch of feeling in her face as the crowds applauded her?
People will speculate. But Ms Reeves has got through her first public appearance, and can now, she hopes, move on.
The prime minister embraced her as he walked on stage, the health secretary talked her up: “Thanks to her leadership, we have seen wages rising faster than the cost of living.”
A show of solidarity at the top of government, a prime minister and chancellor trying to get on with business.
But be in no doubt today’s speech on a 10-year-plan for the NHS has been overshadowed. Not just by a chancellor in tears, but what that image represents.
A PM who, however assured he appeared today, has marked his first year this week, as Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby put to him, with a “self-inflicted shambles”.
She asked: “How have you got this so wrong? How can you rebuild trust? Are you just in denial?”
They are questions Starmer will be grappling with as he tries to move past a disastrous week.
Ms Reeves has borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Ms Badenoch also said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.
Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she will, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
Downing Street scrambled to make clear to journalists that Ms Reeves was “going nowhere”, and the prime minister has since stated publicly that she will remain as chancellor “for many years to come”.