- Storm was convicted of operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business
- For this, he could face a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison
- The jury could not agree on more serious charges of money laundering and sanctions violations
In a legal battle, Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm was found guilty Wednesday of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business.
But the jury remained deadlocked on two more serious charges, leaving prosecutors scrambling to salvage a full conviction.
The verdict, delivered after four grueling days of deliberation, exposed deep divisions among jurors over whether Storm knowingly facilitated money laundering and sanctions evasion through the controversial crypto-mixing service.
While speaking to Eleanor Terrett, Roman Storm said that “It’s a big win. The ‘1960’ charge is bullshit, and we’re going to fight it all the way. You know how President Trump said ‘fight, fight, fight’? We’ll do that too.”
He also mentioned relief at not being remanded to jail and mentioned his 5-year-old daughter as one of the reasons he plans to keep fighting the one charge he was convicted on.
Partial Verdict
As tensions mounted in the Southern District of New York courtroom, Storm’s defense team urged District Judge Katherine Polk Failla to accept a partial verdict in the Tornado Cash case.
Prosecutors, however, pushed back hard, saying an Allen charge, a last-ditch legal maneuver compelling jurors to re-deliberate in hopes of a unanimous decision.
Failla sided with the government, summoning the jury and instructing them to keep debating—but with a crucial caveat: No juror should surrender their honest beliefs just for the sake of agreement.
“We are grateful the jury did not convict Roman for violating sanctions or laundering money. There are serious legal issues with the sole remaining count involving unlicensed money transmission,” said Brian Klein, partner at law firm Waymaker. “We will not stop fighting for Roman and expect him to be fully vindicated.”
Jury’s Skepticism in Tornado Cash Case
The panel’s skepticism was evident in their pointed questions throughout deliberations. Early on, they grilled prosecutors over jurisdictional grounds, asking what evidence justified bringing the case in Manhattan.
Prosecutors leaned heavily on the fact that Tom Schmidt, a Dragonfly Capital VC who invested $900,000 in Tornado Cash’s parent company, was based in New York. But jurors balked—requesting transcripts of an FBI agent’s testimony to verify if Schmidt’s ties were enough to establish venue.
The jury also wrestled with whether Storm had a legal duty to assist foreign law enforcement or if intermediary wallets linked to Tornado Cash were flagged by the U.S. Treasury’s sanctions list (OFAC SDN)—a technical but critical distinction that could sway the outcome.
45-Year Threat Hangs Over Crypto’s Future in Tornado Cash
Storm still faces two unresolved counts in the Tornado Cash case: conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate sanctions. If convicted on all charges, he could spend 45 years behind bars.
Prosecutors allege Storm and his co-founders, Alexey Pertsev (already jailed in the Netherlands) and Roman Semenov (still at large), allowed criminals, including North Korea’s Lazarus Group, to launder over $1 billion in illicit funds.
However, privacy advocates are supporting Roman Storm. Ethereum’s founder, Vitalik Buterin, earlier said that “It’s about the freedom to write code. If the code-as-free-speech precedent is lost, that creates legal risk to people working on a pretty unbounded category of applications and would create a pretty significant chilling effect.”
With the jury still deliberating, the case hangs in the balance. A full acquittal on the remaining charges would be a stunning blow to the DOJ’s aggressive crypto crackdown. But a guilty verdict could set a chilling precedent for developers of privacy-focused tech worldwide.
Alex Urbelis, general counsel for the Ethereum Name Service, said that “Today’s verdict is a mixed bag for crypto,” “The hung jury shows real skepticism about the money laundering and sanctions charges, but I’m disappointed by the conviction for operating an unlicensed money transmitter. This is a complex area where legal nuance and technical understanding matter. I’m not convinced the jury fully understood the crucial divide between custodial and non-custodial systems—a distinction that, if properly recognized, should make a conviction here impossible.”