Amanda Tuminelli, legal counsel for the DeFi Education Fund, has strongly criticized the DOJ's apparent disregard for privacy and emerging technologies in its ongoing case against Tornado Cash.

Critique of DOJ’s Technical Errors and Legal Misapplications

According to DeFi Education Fund legal counsel Amanda Tuminelli (via Cointelegraph), the United States justifications for proceeding with its action against cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash and creator Roman Storm demonstrate a "disdain for privacy" and include a few "egregious statements."

On April 26, the Department of Justice rejected Storm's move to dismiss conspiracy and money laundering allegations, which Tuminelli described on April 27 X postings as "filled with technical inaccuracies, obvious disdain for privacy and emerging technology, and misapplication of the law."

Tuminelli underlined on X a part of the DOJ's statement that Storm contended that "misconduct through computer software is absolutely protected" and that encryption was "inherently beyond the reach of law enforcement."

"This is simply not what Storm argued in his motion," Tuminelli stated. "It is difficult to imagine how this is not intentionally misleading."

Tuminelli also chastised prosecutors for failing to comprehend "how immutable smart contract protocols work," as the brief claims Storm and co-founder Roman Semenov "could have done something about" the alleged illegal behavior on Tornado Cash "but chose not to."

The DOJ also "completely ignores" the reasons in the DeFi Education Fund's amicus brief supporting the dismissal of Storm's charges, which Tuminelli took "as a compliment."

In it, the advocacy group argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the authority to regulate "unusual and extraordinary" threats, has "never been used and should not be used to penalize a software developer who never directly engaged with or solicited conduct with a sanctioned entity."

Implications of DOJ’s Broad Definitions on Crypto and Internet Freedom

Meanwhile, analysts believe one piece of the prosecutors' 111-page response could have far-reaching ramifications for cryptocurrency and internet freedom.

The DOJ stated that the definition of money transmitting under U.S. law "does not require the money transmitter to have 'control' of the funds being transferred" and includes "transferring funds on behalf of the public by any means."

In an April 27 X post, pseudo-anonymous industry pundit L0la L33tz warned that the DOJ's broad claim "could set [dangerous] precedents for the freedom of the internet."

"Any provider broadcasting financial transactions," including internet service providers, "could be at risk of being forced into KYC," they claimed. "Grandma sent $50 in the mail? Clearly, the postman is running a money service business."

Another observer, financial journalist John Paul Koning, wrote on X that the action against Storm "may end up being the seminal crypto court case" and "really about who, if anyone, is liable for smart contracts and the interfaces that access smart contracts, and to what degree."

It comes as crypto-focused lawyer Gabriel Shapiro wrote on X that he was "not (yet) worried" that the DOJ's arguments would convert decentralized application owners into money transmitters.

He predicted that the case would be decided by the relayers and the crypto mixer's Tornado Cash (TORN) token.

"Relayers did Ethereum txs for users (including paying gas). TORN provided an economic interest in the relaying enterprise," Shapiro explained.

In comparison, most DApps allow users to transact on Ethereum by paying their own gas or using a node "owned by the wallet operator, not the DeFi web app operator," he explained.

"[Relayers] literally paid for gas for users," Shapiro wrote. "Does it definitely constitute 'money transmission' under law? We'll find out, but at minimum it's closer to the line."

Storm's trial is now scheduled for September. Semenov remains at large.

Photo: Microsoft Bing