Federal prosecutors have cited an appeals court decision involving the Bitcoin Fog cryptocurrency mixer in their latest opposition to Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm’s bid for acquittal. The filing, submitted on Monday, asks the court to treat the Bitcoin Fog ruling as “directly” supportive of the government’s arguments about where Storm’s alleged conduct took place.
The motion points to a Sept. 25 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirming the convictions and sentence of Bitcoin Fog operator Roman Sterlingov. Prosecutors say the logic the appeals court used to uphold venue in Washington, D.C., carries over to Storm’s case in the Southern District of New York.
Key takeaways
- Prosecutors used a Sept. 25 D.C. Circuit decision involving Bitcoin Fog to argue venue is proper in Storm’s New York case.
- The D.C. Circuit found Washington, D.C. venue supported by an undercover agent’s transactions conducted from a D.C. office.
- For Tornado Cash, prosecutors highlight testimony that Shakeeb Ahmed used Tornado Cash from a Manhattan apartment, which they say helps establish New York venue.
- Judge Katherine Polk Failla has not yet ruled on Storm’s acquittal motion, and a potential retrial is scheduled for April 26, 2027 if pending counts remain.
Why the Bitcoin Fog ruling is now central
In their Monday filing, federal prosecutors said the Bitcoin Fog appeals decision can be used as supplemental authority in Storm’s ongoing litigation. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling addressed whether venue in Washington, D.C. was appropriate for all four counts against Sterlingov, including money-laundering and unlicensed money-transmission allegations.
According to the appeals court’s analysis, venue was proper for the money-laundering counts because prosecutors introduced evidence that an undercover agent performed Bitcoin Fog transactions from an office located in Washington, D.C. For the unlicensed money-transmission counts, the court found sufficient evidence that Bitcoin Fog served customers in the district.
Prosecutors argued that the same basic framing should apply to Storm’s case. They said Tornado Cash activity tied to Manhattan was enough to establish venue for the money-laundering and unlicensed money-transmission conspiracy charges brought against Storm.
Venue dispute in Storm’s acquittal motion
Storm’s acquittal motion centers partly on whether the government proved the necessary connection to New York. In his 2025 post-trial motion, Storm argued that testimony about Shakeeb Ahmed using Tornado Cash from a Manhattan apartment was not sufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of New York, particularly because Storm contended the transactions did not further the alleged conspiracy.
Prosecutors pushed back by emphasizing how mixers can operate even when inputs are brief. They argued that short-lived deposits can still help a mixer obscure the movement of funds by increasing the pool of transactions used to conceal transfers. Prosecutors said the logic applies to Ahmed’s reported use of Tornado Cash and supports the government’s position that Ahmed’s activity furthered the charged conspiracy.
In Monday’s filing, prosecutors therefore attempted to turn the venue debate into a question the court has already addressed in the Bitcoin Fog context: what level of in-district activity is enough for venue, and how do investigators show that such activity fits within the government’s theory of the offense.
What happens next in the Tornado Cash case
Judge Katherine Polk Failla heard arguments on Storm’s acquittal motion in April 2026. As of Monday’s filing, no decision had been issued on whether Storm will be acquitted on the remaining contested counts.
Storm was convicted by a jury in August 2025 of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business. The jury deadlocked on the money-laundering and sanctions-conspiracy charges, leaving those issues unresolved. A retrial on those deadlocked counts is scheduled for April 26, 2027, contingent on whether the charges remain pending at that time.
Storm had filed his post-trial acquittal motion in September 2025, arguing that prosecutors failed to establish the required intent—specifically, that he intended to assist criminals in misusing Tornado Cash.
Storm and broader policy tension
After Monday’s filing, Storm criticized the government’s continued pursuit of the case in a post on X, saying, “The DOJ is still coming after me with everything it has.”
He also pointed to a separate policy development involving U.S. crypto-mixing rules. The filing references the Treasury Department’s announcement on Monday that it would withdraw its proposed crypto-mixer rule. Storm characterized this as evidence of conflicting government approaches toward privacy-oriented crypto tools—an argument aimed less at venue and more at whether the broader regulatory stance is consistent with the way prosecutors are framing criminal liability.
While that policy withdrawal is not, by itself, a ruling in the criminal case, it underscores why these mixer prosecutions remain politically and legally sensitive. Prosecutors are continuing to build their legal theory through case law, while the defense is attempting to broaden the narrative around how the government treats mixing technologies.
For observers, the immediate watchpoints are whether Judge Failla accepts the Bitcoin Fog ruling as persuasive on the venue questions in Storm’s case, and whether that decision affects the scope or posture of any future proceedings. With a retrial date already set for April 2027 on deadlocked counts, the court’s forthcoming ruling could still significantly shape what remains on the table.
https://www.cryptobreaking.com/doj-cites-bitcoin-fog-ruling/?utm_source=blogger%20&utm_medium=social_auto&utm_campaign=DOJ%20cites%20Bitcoin%20Fog%20ruling%20as%20Roman%20Storm%20acquittal%20narrows%20
Comments
Post a Comment