Tornado Cash Verdict: Developer Liability Implications

Reported by Mayer Brown LLP

(Excerpt shared below. To read full report, go to: https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/tornado-cash-verdict-developer-liability-implications-2025-11-01/)

Implications of the Verdict

The mixed verdict in the Tornado Cash trial underscores the uncertainty for developers and operators of decentralized privacy-preserving platforms. There are, however, important inferences that can be drawn from the verdict, including that:

  • Developers and operators should seek legal counsel in determining whether they are operating a money transmitting business and seek the appropriate licenses under FinCEN and state authorities. They should also consider engaging counsel to determine their potential AML and KYC risks.
  • The jury was unpersuaded by the defense’s argument that Storm lacked control over who engaged with the decentralized platform. This may reflect skepticism toward the highly technical aspects of blockchain and digital assets or an expectation that developers should find ways to exercise oversight over the platforms they create.

Despite the technical complexity of digital assets and decentralized technologies, the jurors in the case demonstrated a willingness and ability to engage deeply with the facts and legal issues, as reflected in both their thoughtful jury notes and extended deliberations, and their unwillingness to waver on the two deadlocked charges.

The jury was unpersuaded by the defense’s argument that Storm lacked control over who engaged with the decentralized platform.

The final outcome remains in flux because:

  • Both parties will likely file post-trial motions.
  • The government may retry the two deadlocked conspiracy counts.
  • The defense is preparing to appeal the singular conviction.

On September 30, 2025, Storm filed a post-trial motion asking the court to dismiss all counts or grant a judgment of acquittal on all counts. Among other arguments, Storm contends that prosecutors wrongly relied on a theory of negligent inaction to establish intent. The government’s opposition is due on October 31, 2025.

Leave a comment