Crypto urges Congress to change DOJ rule used against Tornado Cash devs
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.
Source: DeFi Education Fund
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.
Related: Hester Peirce calls for SEC rulemaking to ‘bake in’ crypto regulation
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.”
Magazine: Meet lawyer Max Burwick — ‘The ambulance chaser of crypto’
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.
Politics
Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024