There are basically four different main arguments. The first is about the right to privacy. People should be able to send money to another person in a way that others can't track them. This isn't an issue unique to crypto, though crypto being what it is, there are a lot of mixing tools that are genuinely specific to crypto because most digital assets don't have a native, built-in privacy functionality (and the ones that do, don’t see a ton of usage). The second is the right to create code. If code is speech, merely programming smart contracts cannot in itself be a crime, even if malicious actors use those smart contracts to launder illicit funds. The third focuses on questions of national security. The U.S. dollar is a tool, and the federal government will use it to try and prevent bad actors, as defined by U.S. and other national authorities, from engaging in economic activity. These sanctions have been imposed on individuals, like private citizens who laundered ransomware proceeds; groups, like Russia's Sovcomflot or Suex; and on nations, like the governments of Iran and North Korea. And they can be effective, research shows. From that point of view, the fact that crypto mixers allow (maybe even encourage) users from these sanctioned entities or regions to use their services is a pretty obvious red line, and criminal indictments are a logical next step. And then there’s the most important point of contention: what did the developers actually do, and is the mixer a money-transmitting entity capable of complying with anti-money laundering regulations? According to the Department of Justice, the answer is yes. The Tornado Cash developers didn’t just build an open-source piece of software; they developed an actual business facilitating transactions that the federal government deemed illegal, the DOJ said in both an indictment last year and a filing last Friday. Tornado Cash isn’t just a set of smart contracts released into the world; it’s an entire ecosystem of smart contracts, a front end, a user interface and experience, and so much more. In pursuing this argument, the DOJ is also raising new questions about the activities an entity might engage in to be deemed a money transmitter. Questions about a right to privacy are almost a red herring. Sure, it's an important issue, but it's not the main issue at the heart of these cases. However the cases are resolved, the issue in court won’t necessarily be whether Americans (and others) have a right to transact privately or whether code alone is speech; it's what the services providing privacy are doing and how they're doing it. In other words, just what in the world is a money transmitter, anyway? We already have some hints. The DOJ recently won a case against Roman Sterlingov, the operator behind crypto mixer Bitcoin Fog, successfully arguing he committed money laundering, operated an unlicensed money transmitter and other related things. That case touched on these same issues, though, of course, the underlying facts are different. In the Tornado Cash case, the facts themselves seem to be a point of contention between the prosecution and the defense. Storm asserted – as his colleague Roman Semenov did well before Tornado Cash was first sanctioned – that he did not have much control over Tornado Cash at the time. The DOJ disagrees with the premise, writing in last week’s filing that the relevant part of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) guidance doesn’t address the idea of “control.” Rather, the DOJ argued that the money-transmitting business includes relayers, the Tornado Cash pools, a commercial enterprise, etc. Moreover, the DOJ argued that something that can transfer value qualifies as a money transmitter (an assertion that’s drawn quite a bit of pushback online). Long story short, much of the debate leading up to the trial – and maybe during the trial itself – will center around the question of whether any system of smart contracts that transfer value qualifies as money transmitters. If the answer is yes, does that mean that other decentralized autonomous organizations or similar types of autonomous entities might be transmitters? If that answer is yes, we come back to the question of just what a money transmitter is and where the line is that requires a service to register as such in the U.S. and implement know-your-customer/anti-money laundering (KYC/AML) rules. This case may well define a money transmitter, and the crypto industry is unlikely to like the answer should the DOJ win. This line of questioning is reminiscent of the unhosted wallet proposal by FinCEN near the end of 2020 – and, coincidentally, the FBI also just published a warning about unhosted wallets just last week. And this brings us to (also) last week, when prosecutors brought conspiracy to commit money laundering charges against Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, the developers behind Samourai Wallet. For many in the industry, this was an escalation of the federal government's ongoing efforts against the right to transact privately and/or write code. But it goes back to the basic questions at the top – what are those red lines, and did the Samourai Wallet team create a wallet they controlled and offered privacy mixing features on top of? Samourai, like Tornado, collected fees for services rendered, the DOJ alleged in its indictment, and the defendants built tools knowing there may be illicit usage. It remains to be seen how far the comparisons extend, but the core arguments seem to be similar.
Some platforms are announcing blocks against U.S.-based customers as a result, though unless they actually build know-your-customer programs, that may not be enough to satisfy the DOJ's concerns.
| 